Sitting of 20 July 1949

Preamble
The House met at Half-past Two o'Clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  ROCHDALE CANAL BILL [Lords]
  Read the Third time, and passed, with an Amendment.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  ROYAL NAVY

    London Allowance
    Mr. J. Langford-Holtasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty how much London allowance is paid to officers and ratings; and whether he considers this adequate after deduction of Income Tax.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. John Dugdale): The rates of London allowance for officers range from 5s. to 3s. 6d. a day according to rank. Chief petty officers and petty officers receive 1s. 3d. a day, and leading rates and below 1s. a day. For full details I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to pages 248 and 251 of the Navy Estimates, 1949–50. In common with all other items of naval pay, London allowance is constantly under review.
    Mr. Langford-Holt: Is the right hon. Gentleman quite satisfied that this allowance, which varies from 5s. in the case of some officers down to just over 1s. in the case of petty officers and men, is quite adequate for the purpose for which it was designed?
    Mr. Dugdale: I have no reason to think that it is disproportionately low.
    Sir Ronald Ross: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that since the pay of officers was raised most officers are very much worse off owing to the taxation of their allowances?
    Mr. Dugdale: I find it very difficult to believe that after a rise in pay an officer is worse off.
    Commander Noble: Could the right hon. Gentleman say whether these figures are the same for all three Services?
    Mr. Dugdale: As far as I know they are, but I would not like to commit myself.

    W.R.N.S. Personnel, Chequers
    Mr. Langford-Holtasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty how many Women's Royal Naval Service personnel are employed at Chequers; and on which Vote their cost is borne.
    Mr. Dugdale: There are at present 13 W.R.N.S. ratings serving at Chequers. They are paid initially from Navy Votes, a grant towards the cost of their pay and victualling being made from the Chequers Trust Fund, and credited as an appropriation in aid.
    Mr. Langford-Holt: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House what are the duties of the W.R.N.S. at Chequers? I am not complaining of the fact that there are W.R.N.S. at Chequers, but I wonder if he could tell us what their duties are. Secondly, would he make a point of seeing that no charge for these duties goes on the Navy Vote at a time when this House keeps very strict watch on this Vote?
    Mr. Dugdale: The duties are the ordinary household duties of cooks and stewards. So far as the cost is concerned, we receive a refund of £800 a year for victualling, and apart from that, £600 by way of grant from the Chequers Trust.
    Mr. Anthony Greenwood: Would my right hon. Friend say whether this practice of employing women at Chequers was not started when the right hon. Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) was Prime Minister?
    Mr. Dugdale: Yes, Sir. That is perfectly correct.
    Captain Marsden: Are these W.R.N.S. volunteers, and if not, why not, in view of the fact that they joined the Naval Service and are now employed in the heart of the country?
    Mr. Dugdale: No, Sir. They are drafted, and they are drafted in the service of the Prime Minister who is himself the head of our defence. It is perfectly correct that they should be so drafted, in the opinion of the Admiralty.

    Foreign Service (Terminal Leave)
    Mr. Willisasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty what arrangements are made to ensure that men serving overseas, and nearing the completion of their first continuous service engagement, are returned to the United Kingdom in sufficient time to take any leave due to them and seek civilian employment before the date upon which they are due for discharge.
    Mr. Dugdale: Men returning from overseas to take their discharge are granted both foreign service leave and terminal leave. Every endeavour is made to relieve them in sufficient time to give foreign service leave before they are due for discharge, but the exigencies of the service and the uncertainties of transport sometimes make this impossible. Terminal leave may be granted either before or immediately after the expiry of the engagement. At present, owing to the Navy's manpower difficulties, it is generally necessary for it to come after. Final discharge procedure is completed before the man goes on leave and he is able, if he wishes, to take up civilian employment before his leave expires.
    Mr. Willis: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the period before discharge when a rating may apply for his relief varies very considerably from ship to ship on the same station and that this causes great concern to the men? Would he not look into it with a view to making the period fairly general on the same station for all ships?
    Mr. Dugdale: The point is that there are different situations in different ships and the difficulties in some ships may be greater than in others. We have to allow for those difficulties, but, as far as we can, we see that relief is granted as soon as it possibly can be granted.

    H.M.S. "Birmingham" (Commission)
    Mr. Willisasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty what is the
    1344
    anticipated duration of the present commission of H.M.S. "Birmingham" from the date of her departure from the United Kingdom to her return to a United Kingdom port.
    Mr. Dugdale: Two years and four months.
    Mr. Willis: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in times of full employment, like the present, this very long commission—and it is a long post-war commission—is the type of factor which deters men from signing on for another 10 years after the end of their period of 12 years?
    Mr. Dugdale: So far as this particular ship is concerned, I can only say that, in fact, the period is slightly less than normal. The actual time fixed is 2½ years, and this is two years and four months.
    Commander Noble: Would the right hon. Gentleman keep a very careful watch on the length of foreign commissions for, as the hon. Member for North Edinburgh (Mr. Willis) said, it may well be one of the deterrents which prevent men from signing on for pension?
    Mr. Dugdale: Most certainly.

  TELEVISION (LINE DEFINITION)
  Mr. Langford-Holtasked the Postmaster-General, in view of the desirability of increasing television lineage above the 405 at present in use, what alterations will be necessary to transmitters and receivers when this change is made.
  The Postmaster-General (Mr. Wilfred Paling): Entirely, or almost entirely, new transmitters and receivers would be required for any worth-while increase in the number of lines. I do not agree that any such change would be justified for some years to come.
  Mr. Langford-Holt: Would the right hon. Gentleman agree that ultimately such a change will have to be made? Against the coming of that time has he now plans and ideas as to how that change can be made without interference with the service?
  Mr. Paling: It may be that the change will be made, but it will be some years ahead.
  Mr. Eric Fletcher: If it were eventually decided to adopt the 819 line system, which is perfected in France, would not all the existing receivers be redundant? Would it not be desirable for the Government to reconsider this matter as soon as practicable?
  Mr. Paling: I issued a statement some time ago saying that the 405 line definition would remain in this country for some time to come, and would be standardised.

  POST OFFICE

    Services, Aberdeen
    Mr. Hector Hughesasked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that the postal services in Aberdeen have not been restored to their pre-war effectiveness and are insufficient, that the Chamber of Commerce, the business community and others complain of this; and when he will have the defects in it rectified.
    Mr. Paling: Yes, Sir. I regret that the national manpower position does not yet permit of any general improvement in postal services.
    Mr. Hughes: Is the Postmaster-General aware that letters posted in the City of Aberdeen after 5.45 are not delivered until the second post the next day, while letters posted in Aberdeenshire and Banffshire are delivered by the first post the next day? Is he aware that there is an anomaly which should be rectified? [HON. MEMBERS: "Where?"] In the City of Aberdeen. Will the Postmaster-General take steps to rectify this anomaly?
    Mr. Paling: If my hon. and learned Friend has any particular problem in Aberdeen and will let me know the particulars, I will inquire into it.

    Telephone Exchange, Cardiff
    Mr. George Thomasasked the Postmaster-General when it is expected that the new telephone exchange at Cardiff will be in operation.
    Mr. Paling: The new telephone exchange at Cardiff is expected to be in operation by the end of 1951.

  ROYAL AIR FORCE

    Depôt, Warminster
    Mr. Grimstonasked the Secretary of State for Air if he will state with regard to the Crabbe Tree Camp Depôt, near Longleat, Warminster, Wilts, the purposes for which the depot is being used; the amount of material which is being put in and taken out daily; and the amount of civilian labour employed.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Mr. Geoffrey de Freitas): This is an equipment depôt for the receipt and issue of stores such as oil, paint and dopes. At present each day about 30 tons of stores are received and about eight tons issued. One hundred and ninety-four civilians are employed.
    Mr. Grimston: Does not this seem a very large number of people for the amount of work that is being done at this depôt? Is the Under-Secretary aware that I have received many complaints of the apparent waste of effort and uneconomical running of this depôt? Is he further aware that it was cleared entirely some time ago, and that apparently a change of policy has caused it to be opened again? Can the hon. Gentleman tell me if it is the intention to make it permanent? Will he look into the whole question?
    Mr. de Freitas: There are several questions here. The answer to the last two is, "Yes" and "Yes." As to the allegation of waste of manpower, I have no information at all. If the hon. Gentleman will let me have evidence I will certainly investigate it.

    Volunteer and Reserve Forces (Strength)
    Air-Commodore Harveyasked the Secretary of State for Air what is the present strength of the Royal Auxiliary Air Force and the Royal Air Force Volunteer Reserve; and how many recruits have joined both branches during 1949.
    Mr. de Freitas: The strength of the Royal Auxiliary Air Force is 4,900 and that of the Royal Air Force Volunteer Reserve 6,600. Between 15th January and 30th June this year the numbers of recruits were 1,760 and 2,380 respectively.
    Air-Commodore Harvey: Can the hon. Gentleman say what steps his Ministry is taking to attract additional recruits into this very important part of the Royal Air Force?
    Mr. de Freitas: There has been and we are continuing a recruiting campaign throughout the country, in which we are receiving very valuable help from organisations such as the Territorial and Auxiliary Forces Associations of one of which the hon. and gallant Gentleman is a member. The present trend of recruiting is definitely up. The results while good, are not as good as we should like them to be, and we hope for improvement.

  WAR LOSSES, BURMA (COMPENSATION)
  Mr. Thomas Reidasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (1) on whom does the obligation rest in respect to the losses caused by the war to the Burma Oil Company; by whom these losses have been made good; and if he will make a statement;
  (2) on whom does the obligation rest in respect to the losses caused by the war to the Irrawaddy Flotilla Company; by whom have these losses been made good; and if he will make a statement.
  The Minister of State (Mr. McNeil): In the opinion of His Majesty's Government, legal liability for compensation for war damage losses in Burma rests with the Burmese Government. In answer to the second and third parts of the Questions. I would refer my hon. Friend to the statement about compensation for war damage in Burma made by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 24th June, 1949.
  Mr. Reid: Is it the fact that the British Government are paying about £1,250,000 in compensation to the Burma Oil Company without having any guarantee that the Government of Burma will make up that sum? As to my second Question, is it a fact that the Irrawaddy Flotilla Company has been nationalised—on paper or otherwise—by the Government of Burma, and, if so, has adequate compensation been paid?
  Mr. McNeil: The answer to the third Question is "No," and to the second Question, "Yes." As to the first, I am not sure precisely what my hon. Friend has in mind, but there have been two separate ex gratia payments.
  Mr. Walter Fletcher: In cases, of which this is one, where, at the request of the military people in charge, a scorched earth policy was carried out, is not the moral responsibility for that clearly on His Majesty's Government? What action will they take?
  Mr. McNeil: It seems to me that the hon. Gentleman has not read the statement by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

  BARRAGE, NILE VALLEY (TENDERS)
  Mr. Keelingasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that for the new Edfina barrage in the Nile Valley, estimated to cost £3,000,000, not a single British firm was able to tender; and whether he will make representations to the Egyptian Government as to easing the financial and other conditions in Egypt which impede foreign contracts.
  Mr. McNeil: British firms were able to tender for the contract for the Edfina barrage but were unwilling to do so owing to the regulations prevailing in Egypt at the time. A memorandum setting out the reasons why British firms had felt discouraged from submitting tenders to Egyptian Government departments was presented to the Egyptian Government in the course of the financial negotiations at the beginning of this year, and His Majesty's Ambassador at Cairo has continued to represent this matter to the Egyptian Government.
  Mr. Keeling: Did the memorandum include any suggestion to the Egyptian Government that, in their own interests, they should appoint a consulting engineer for these big contracts?
  Mr. McNeil: Yes. We did point out that this was normal practice, and that there were no better firms for this kind of work than those in Britain.

  RED CROSS CONFERENCE (BRITISH DELEGATION)
  Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs for what purpose the British delegation was sent to the International Red Cross Conference which has been sitting at Geneva; and what instructions were given to them.
  Mr. McNeil: His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom accepted the invitation of the Swiss Federal Council to attend the Diplomatic Conference for the protection of war victims, now sitting at Geneva.
  The United Kingdom Delegation has been instructed to do everything within its power at the Conference to negotiate practicable agreements that will serve the humanitarian objectives for which the four Conventions covering this subject are designed.
  Mr. Hughes: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether this conference has ever considered the question of preventing the atrocity of the bombing of civilian populations? What is being done by our delegation as to that?
  Mr. McNeil: I am not sure whether my hon. Friend has been reading a newspaper story or not. There has been a newspaper story connected with subjects outwith the competence of this Conference. The conventions are designed to deal with protected persons and with civilians, and on this subject our delegation has been firmly and competently instructed.
  Mr. Joynson-Hicks: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether this delegation will also be sent over in private cars of the Ministry of Supply, as was the delegation to Annecy?
  Mr. McNeil: That is not, of course, my subject, but I should imagine that since such a procedure is economical and applicable, it is probable that they are thus being served.
  Mr. Piratin: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether this question of the bombing of civilian populations has come up at all in any form, and, if so, what was the attitude taken by the British delegation?
  Mr. McNeil: I suppose the hon. Gentleman is referring to resolutions
  1350
  tabled by the Soviet Government dealing with atomic bombing. That has not yet been discussed.
  Mr. Hughes: Since the right hon. Gentleman has referred to a newspaper, will he tell us whether the report in the "Observer" was without foundation?
  Mr. McNeil: I did not mention the "Observer."

  GERMANY

    Organisations (Licensing)
    Mr. Skeffington-Lodgeasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he intends to allow Joachim von Ostau and Pastor Goebel, leaders of the League of Independent Germans and the Action Committee of Free Germans, respectively, to continue their political activities in Western Germany; and what action he proposes in the case of these and other German nationals who are using ostensibly non-political associations for nationalist propaganda.
    Mr. McNeil: Neither the Independent Germans nor the Action Committee of Free Germans have been licensed as political groups. Pastor Goebel's application for a licence will be refused; no application has been received from Herr von Ostau. My right hon. Friend is satisfied that the vigilance exercised as a matter of course by the Military Governor is sufficient to guard against the kind of danger which my hon. Friend has in mind, and it is not, therefore, proposed to take any special action in these cases.
    Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: Does that mean that these two individuals named in my Question will be allowed a free hand to continue their present activities in Western Germany?
    Mr. McNeil: No, Sir. I have drawn attention to the residual authority, and have said that in the case of Pastor Goebel, he will be refused a licence.
    Mr. Skeffington-Lodgeasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the nature of the Action Committee of Free Germans established in the British zone of Germany; and what decision has been reached about its leader's application to run candidates for elections.
    Mr. McNeil: The Action Committee of Free Germans, which would be virtually a refugee party, has not been established in the British zone. Pastor Goebel, who has proposed that such a body should be set up, is being officially informed that it cannot be recognised as a political party.
    Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: But is it to be recognised as an organisation which is allowed to function in Western Germany?—because if that is so, its dangerous neo-nationalist leanings may have serious repercussions.
    Mr. McNeil: It is very difficult to understand what my hon. Friend means. He has put down a Question relating to this group functioning as a political party, to which I have precisely and negatively replied. If he is asking me what Pastor Goebel is being permitted to think, then of course I have no answer.
    Mr. Skeffington-Lodgeasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how many licences for the establishment of new non-political organisations have been issued in Western Germany; and what investigation of the character of these bodies is undertaken before applications are granted.
    Mr. McNeil: The responsibility for licensing and investigating the character of non-political organisations in Western Germany rests with the German authorities and not with Military Government. It is not known how many of these licences have been issued. Military Government would immediately investigate any non-political organisation, indulging in undesirable political activities.
    Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: Is my right hon. Friend not aware that a good many of these organisations which are ostensibly non-political are indulging in political propaganda; and that being so, will he not bring some pressure to bear on the German authorities so that this kind of thing shall stop?
    Mr. McNeil: I should be glad to investigate any information which my hon. Friend gives me upon this subject, but I am a little reluctant to agree that we should press the military authorities. The ordinance defining what activities are legitimate or legal is fairly widely drawn, and it does provide for propaganda
    1352
    against the occupation authorities, propaganda relating to the fomenting of war feeling, and propaganda relating to the recreation of nationalist feeling.
    Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: As, on the whole, I regard my right hon. Friend's replies to these three Questions as being not fully satisfactory, and as there is a real danger of the revival of Nazism in Germany through the organisations named in my Questions, I give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible moment.

    Dismantling
    Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what recent protests he has received from the leaders of the Social Democratic Party of Germany on the question of dismantling in Germany; and how he intends to reply.
    Mr. McNeil: None, Sir.
    Mr. Hughes: Is the Minister not aware that the Social Democratic Party of Germany has made emphatic protests about the dismantling policy, saying that this means increased unemployment of miners and steel workers; and is the right hon. Gentleman going to take any notice of that at all?
    Mr. McNeil: The hon. Gentleman asked me what complaints had been received. The answer is "None, Sir."

  ICELANDIC FISH CONTRACT
  Sir David Robertsonasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs why a copy of the Icelandic Fish Contract has not yet been placed in the Library.
  Mr. McNeil: It would be contrary to established practice to make public the terms of an individual Government contract.
  Sir D. Robertson: What can there possibly be in this contract which is causing the Government to refuse to show it to hon. Members of this House? Is it because very large losses have been incurred in delivering rotten fish to the Germans which they will not accept, and for which we have to pay?
  Mr. McNeil: The hon. Gentleman is making an assumption which is quite unwarranted. The schedule of deliveries to the Germans was quite well defined, and the question of two cargoes which were received was outside the definition. As to the first part of his supplementary question, I should imagine that the hon. Gentleman, who has an extensive experience of the fish distribution business, would scarcely argue that it would contribute to normal activity if the prices of one or two of the partners in the activity were published.
  Mr. William Shepherd: Would the right hon. Gentleman tell the House whether or not this contract involved guaranteed prices to the Icelanders?
  Mr. McNeil: My recollection is that, as is normal in contracts covering such a period, there were agreed minimum prices.

  BRUSSELS TREATY
  Mr. Kenneth Lindsayasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is now in a position to say what action has been taken to implement Article III of the Brussels Treaty.
  Mr. McNeil: Yes, Sir, but as the answer is rather long, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
  Mr. Lindsay: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that that information, which I believe is quite valuable, is passed on to the British delegation which is going to Strasburg, and also to the secretariat, so that the information for the five Powers can be extended to the ten Powers?
  Mr. McNeil: I am a little cautious about what my relationship with the delegation is, but the information will be available in the Library, and I think it will be furnished to the delegation.
  Following is the answer:
  The ad hoc Committee of Cultural Advisers, which met in London in August, 1948, has been given permanent status and has met in Paris in November, 1948, in the Hague in March, 1949, and in Brussels in May, 1949. Its next meeting will be held in Luxembourg in
  1354
  October. The Committee has considered reports on the existing obstacles to the free movement of persons and the free flow of cultural material between the five countries, and has passed resolutions aimed at improving the circulation of books and periodicals and contemporary works of art. These resolutions have been communicated to the five Governments with a request that they should take the steps necessary to give them effect.
  Educational inspectors from the five countries visited the United Kingdom from 25th April to 21st May. This was the first of a series of such visits to be organised by the five countries and was a marked success. The next visit will be organised by the French Government in Sevres in 1950. Fifty teachers from the five countries will be visiting Ashridge, Hertfordshire, in August for the first course in a series to be organised by the five Governments. The second course will be held under the auspices of the French Government in Sevres in July and August, 1950.
  A third series of courses to be organised is for Government officials of the Brussels Treaty countries, and the first one will take place in November in London. The subject for study will be the machinery of government in the United Kingdom with special reference to the structure and organisation of the Executive. Two similar courses will be organised by the French Government in France in 1950.
  Four sub-committees of the Cultural Committee have been set up; one to consider the special question of facilities for young people who wish to travel to the Brussels Treaty countries; another to consider the question of newsreels; the third the question of non-commercial films; and the fourth to consider the creation of a "cultural card" which would give certain facilities to the holder of the card travelling in the five countries for a cultural purpose. The British Council are compiling each quarter a calendar of congresses which are to be held in the five countries.
  Further subjects which are receiving the attention of the Cultural Committee are problems of student employees, exchanges of reproductions of works of art and the equivalence of qualifications allowing access to higher education.

  BRITISH EMBASSY, MOSCOW (MISS PETERS)
  Mr. Blackburnasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what reply has been received from the Soviet Government to the aide-mémoire addressed to it by the British Government on 27th April with relation to the disappearance of Miss May Peters.
  Mr. McNeil: As stated on 11th July, the aide-mémoire of 27th April did not refer solely to the disappearance of Miss Peters but also to other recent cases of interference by the Soviet authorities with the work of His Majesty's Embassy in Moscow. The Soviet reply, which was handed to His Majesty's Charge d'Affaires in Moscow on 20th May, stated that
  "The assertions … about cases of persecution of employees of the British Embassy … are devoid of all foundation"
  and that
  "questions about the relations between Soviet authorities and Soviet citizens cannot fall within the competence of the Embassy."
  The Soviet Ministry of Foreign Affairs at the same time made it clear that they regarded Miss Peters as a Soviet national.
  Mr. Blackburn: Has my right hon. Friend any news of Miss Peters, where she is and what has happened to her; and will he consider, by way of reciprocal retaliation, a principle which the Government have accepted, of expelling at least one official from the Soviet Embassy here?
  Mr. McNeil: On the second part of the question, I should not like to agree that it was a principle. It is true that in one case we have acted in a fashion which might be so described. The answer to the first part of the supplementary question is "None, Sir."
  Mr. Henry Strauss: What further action do His Majesty's Government propose to take; and is it the settled policy of His Majesty's Government not to allow any atrocity to interfere with their trade negotiations with Russia and her satellites?
  Mr. McNeil: The hon. and learned Gentleman is very slack in his use of language. This is an impropriety of which we are very well aware, and about which we protested; but it is not an atrocity.
  Mr. Oliver Stanley: How does the right hon. Gentleman know?
  Mr. McNeil: As far as I know, it is not. If the right hon. Gentleman has any information to back up his extraordinary use of this word I think he might offer it to the House.
  Vice-Admiral Taylor: Will not the Government take some further definite action? Do not they realise that by carrying out the normal procedure between friendly countries in a matter of this sort they will never get any satisfaction out of Russia?
  Mr. Marlowe: Could the right hon. Gentleman provide the House with some evidence or information upon which hon. Members could consider the validity of the claim that this woman is a Russian national? At the moment, as far as I know, most people are ignorant of the facts upon which a conclusion could be drawn.
  Mr. McNeil: Two answers have already been given upon this subject. I will gladly consider giving any information, but I am inclined to the conclusion that even if all the information we have were made available, it would be a debate for lawyers and for no one else.

  GREECE (REFUGEES)
  Mr. K. Lindsayasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the magnitude of the Greek refugee problem and humanitarian problems involved, he will support the advocacy of direct assistance by the United Nations to assist the resettlement of the rural population, as recommended by a report from the Special Committee on the Balkans.
  Mr. McNeil: The report of the United Nations Special Committee on the Balkans did not recommend direct assistance by the United Nations for the resettlement of the rural population of Greece, since apart from anything else it was not competent to make such a recommendation. The report in question simply drew the attention of the Secretary-General of the United Nations to the plight of the refugees in Greece and to the humanitarian problems involved.
  Mr. Lindsay: Even if it is strictly correct that they called attention to the plight, would the right hon. Gentleman see that some action is taken at the forthcoming meeting of the Assembly; and in view of the fact that it is quite impossible for the Greek Government, even with E.C.A. assistance, to deal with one-tenth of the population in the present plight of the refugees in various camps, will the right hon. Gentleman see that some action is taken over what is really an international problem?
  Mr. McNeil: His Majesty's Government are very sensible—
  Mr. Stanley: Use another word.
  Mr. McNeil: His Majesty's Government are very sensible of the dimensions of the problem to which the hon. Gentleman has drawn my attention. We are considering what action might be appropriate at the United Nations, but in honesty I ought to add that because of the strain upon His Majesty's Government and other like-minded Governments just now I should not like to hold out undue hope of aid at this time.

  BRITISH GUIANA

    Amerindians
    Mr. Skinnardasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will make available copies of the two Reports on Amerindian conditions laid before the Legislative Council of British Guiana in February together with a copy of the critical memorandum submitted by the Bishop of British Guiana to the Governor.
    The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Creech Jones): Copies of the two reports are on their way to this country for sale by the Crown Agents for the Colonies. I will arrange on their arrival for copies to be placed in the Library of the House. I have not seen any memorandum from the Bishop of British Guiana, but I am asking the Acting Governor whether copies are available.
    Mr. Skinnard: While thanking my right hon. Friend for that answer, may I ask him if he will inform the House whether
    1358
    these reports are being acted upon, or whether action is being deferred?
    Mr. Creech Jones: Action is being taken, and both the Government of British Guiana and His Majesty's Government are studying the proposals.

    Makusi Tribe
    Mr. Skinnardasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies to what extent members of the Makusi tribe in British Guiana, who have declined to move from their present lands to facilitate rancher settlement, will be deprived of the present special rights granted to Indians living outside a Reserve.
    Mr. Creech Jones: No decision has yet been reached on a proposal that the Makusi should move to a new area, nor will they be invited to move unless in their own interests.
    Mr. Skinnard: Will my right hon. Friend look into the suggestion that some form of sanction might be imposed if they refuse to move, particularly some form of compulsory registration involving the carrying of a certificate?
    Mr. Creech Jones: Yes, Sir, but before anything is done the Legislative Council will consider the proposal and the report.

  COLONIAL EMPIRE (EXPENDITURE)
  Mr. T. Reidasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what is the total sum given or promised since 1st January, 1944, to Colonies on behalf of the British taxpayer.
  Mr. Creech Jones: As the reply contains a list of figures, I am circulating a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
  Mr. Reid: Could my right hon. Friend say what is the total?
  Mr. Creech Jones: It is rather difficult to give a final figure. I have tried to classify the various items of expenditure, but one item is £160½ million and the other is £120 million.
  Following is the statement:
  The total sum given or promised to colonies on behalf of the British taxpayer since 1st January, 1944, is approximately £160,500,000, comprising the following main items:

  (a) £120,000,000 made available under the Colonial Development and Welfare Act of 1945.

  (b) £15,544,000 grant-in-aid of administration.

  (c) £8,918,000 for defence and reconstruction in the Far East.

  (d) £2,539,000 for subsidies, mainly for food, to Malta and certain West Indian territories.

  (e) £13,500,000 for claims waived by His Majesty's Government chiefly in the Far East.

  Items (c) to (e) are made up in detail, as follows:

  Item (c)

  £

  (i) Malaya: Defence Expenditure

  6,000,000

  (ii) North Borneo:

  Reconstruction

  1,600,000

  Redemption of Chartered Co.'s Currency

  502,296

  War Compensation

  816,666

  Item (d)

  (i) Malta:

  Food Subsidies

  1,650,000

  (ii) British Guiana:

  Compensation to Sugar Growers

  117,669

  (iii) Trinidad:

  Subsidies for Sugar Replanting

  190,450

  (iv) West Indian Colonies:

  (Jamaica, Turks and Caicos Islands and British Guiana):

  Subsidies to reduce cost of living since the war

  580,908

  Item (e)

  Claims waived:

  (i) Military Administration in Malaya, Hong Kong and Borneo

  10,000,000

  (ii) Purchase price of North Borneo Chartered Company

  1,400,000

  (iii) Defence Expenditure Fiji

  2,000,000

  (iv) British Honduras:

  Hurricane Loan (outstanding part of principal converted to grant)

  100,418

  (a) (a) Colonial Development and Welfare

  120,000,000

  (b) (2) Grant-in-aid

  (1.1.44 to 31.3.49)

  11,644,905

  Estimate (1.1.49 to 31.3.50)

  3,900,000

  160,503,312

  In addition, His Majesty's Government have made an offer of a £20 million grant to the Federation of Malaya in respect of war damage, but this offer is conditional on the Federation accepting the projected war damage scheme. The above figures, except for the provision under the Colonial Development and Welfare Act, do not take into account assistance in the form of loans.

  ST. KITTS-NEVIS (LAND TAX)
  Mr. Skinnardasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the fact that the taxation of uncultivated land in St. Kitts-Nevis has the useful effect of causing more land to be brought under cultivation, he will request the Governor of the Colony to increase the present low rate of 12 cents an acre.
  Mr. Creech Jones: No, Sir. All arable land except that necessary for pasture and forest cover is cultivated in St. Kitts. In Nevis the Government's policy is to encourage present cultivation on a leasehold basis, and my advice is that increased land tax would not enlarge the cultivated area.

  TRINIDAD (WATER SUPPLY SCHEMES)
  Mr. Joynson-Hicksasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what progress has been made towards the provision of a water works scheme for the island of Trinidad; whether the report made in 1947 to the Colonial Government by their consulting engineers has yet been implemented; and if he will make a statement.
  Mr. Creech Jones: As stated in my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Central Hackney (Mr. H. Hynd) on 22nd September, 1948, £696,250, had been spent on the Caura dam up to that date. In addition, from 1942 to 1948 nearly £200,000 were spent on improvements in water supply in four other districts and in certain rural areas. The recommendations made by the consulting engineers in 1947 have not yet been carried out owing to lack of funds, but an order of priority of capital works has been worked out in consultation with them and is to be placed before the Legislature with a view to the works being undertaken in stages as funds are available.
  Mr. Joynson-Hicks: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate how very little his reply relates to the Question, that expenditure on the Caura Dam has not produced any water as the Dam leaks badly, and that the 1942 recommendations have not yet by any means been implemented? Can he say whether the

  1361
  people of Trinidad have any better hope of getting water now than they had in 1947—because there is no appearance of it?
  Mr. Creech Jones: I have indicated that work on alternative waterworks has been going forward. I made it clear that a consulting engineer has also been at work, and that a programme of work has already been planned.

  TANGANYIKA (FORMER GERMAN ESTATES)
  Mr. Gammansasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if it is with his knowledge and approval that Mr. N. W. E. McDermott, of Arusha, Tanganyika, has been given notice to quit an ex-enemy farm which he has leased and worked for the last seven years in order to make room for bungalows for retired Government servants; and why he cannot be left in possession, in view of the fact that all his capital and savings are invested in this property.
  Mr. Creech Jones: I approved a recommendation by the Tanganyika Government, based on the report of the Moshi-Arusha Lands Commission, that certain small ex-German estates in these districts should be used to provide residential plots. I am, however, asking the Governor for a report on this case.
  Mr. Gammans: Does the right hon. Gentleman approve of a man who has been on his farm seven years, and who has invested all his money in it, being cleared out for this sort of purpose?
  Mr. Creech Jones: I do not know what the purpose is, and I must get information from Tanganyika about these cases.

  SARAWAK (GOVERNOR)
  Mr. William Teelingasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies why the Governor of Sarawak has been transferred from Sarawak to the Gold Coast; to what extent it is his intention only to keep Governors in Sarawak for a short period of duty; and if he will give the name of the new Governor of Sarawak.
  Mr. Creech Jones: This officer was selected for the Governorship of the Gold
  1362
  Coast because he was considered the most suitable person for that appointment. I certainly have no such intention as that suggested in the second part of the Question. I am not yet in a position to announce the name of the new Governor of Sarawak.
  Mr. Teeling: Does the right hon. Gentleman remember that when Sarawak was confiscated, two or three years ago, it was pointed out that the Brooke family knew the language, the country and the people, and that the main trouble would be that the new Governor would not? The right hon. Gentleman then suggested that everything possible would be done to keep a Governor there as long as possible. Is he aware that ignorant people there will now think that this means failure on the part of His Majesty's Governor, while others will realise that Governors are not to be kept there for the length of time originally suggested?
  Mr. Creech Jones: I think the hon. Gentleman had better wait until a further announcement is made about the Governor of Sarawak, but in any case the principle of continuity is kept well in mind.
  Mr. Stanley: In the case of illness of a Governor, however desirable it may be that Governors should have a long term in their Colony, is it not inevitable sometimes that these terms must be cut short?
  Mr. Teeling: Is it not true that the Minister originally suggested that the Governor would stay there a long time, and that that statement was irresponsible.
  Mr. Creech Jones: I do not agree that I made any such statement.
  Mr. Dumpleton: Does my right hon. Friend agree with the suggestion that Sarawak was confiscated?

  ADEN

    Planning Legislation
    Mr. Rankinasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what town planning legislation has now been enacted in Aden; and whether special measures can be taken to speed up the implementation of the plan in relation to recreational facilities in Holkat Bay in view of the pressing needs of all sections of the population.
    Mr. Creech Jones: An Aden Town Planning Ordinance was enacted in 1948. The desirability of introducing recreational facilities as soon as possible is fully appreciated, and tenders for the Holkat Bay project are being invited in the Aden Gazette of 20th July.

    Immigration Control
    Mr. Rankinasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what legislation to control immigration has been passed by the Government of Aden; and whether he will regard legislation of this kind as a matter of urgency in view of the pressure of immigrants from the hinterland and the limited social services of the colony.
    Mr. Creech Jones: Immigration control is at present regulated by the Aden Immigration Ordinance of 1942. A comprehensive plan to enforce stricter control over immigration from the mainland, which involves the construction of barriers and control posts, has been approved and funds have been voted by the Aden Legislative Council.

  HONG KONG

    Police Search
    Mr. Gallacherasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what was the purpose of the raid, by plain clothes police, on the home of Fang Fang, a leading Hong Kong citizen, on 13th June; and what was discovered during the raid.
    Mr. Creech Jones: The search was carried out under the provisions of the Hong Kong Arms and Ammunition Ordinance. It was for suspected illicit weapons. None was found.
    Mr. Gallacher: Is it not the case that the authorities knew perfectly well that there was no possibility of finding anything whatever in this citizen's house, and that this raid was part of a series of deliberate provocations now being carried out in Hong Kong?
    Mr. Creech Jones: The authorities in Hong Kong are responsible for internal security, and the activities of this man are well known to them.
    Mr. W. Fletcher: Did the police find anything wrong-wrong?
    Mr. Gallacher: It may be a very funny matter for Members opposite, but it is a serious matter when a raid is made on the house of any citizen. Is there any evidence of any kind that would justify a raid being made on this man's house any more than a raid being made on the houses of Members opposite, which would also be very wrong-wrong?
    Mr. Creech Jones: I will merely add that the gentleman referred to is not a native or a leading or active citizen of Hong Kong.
    Mr. Thurtle: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I hope he will not be intimidated by Questions in this House, but will encourage the authorities in Hong Kong to take all necessary steps to preserve security.

    Trade Unions
    Mr. Gallacherasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies (1) why Hong Kong trade unions are not allowed to keep documents which arrive from outside Hong Kong;
    (2) why the Hong Kong trade unions are being refused communication with trade unions on the Chinese mainland and abroad.
    Mr. Creech Jones: The hon. Member is misinformed. There is no prohibition against a Hong Kong trade union retaining documents which arrive from outside the Colony unless these are orders or directions regarding the action of persons in Hong Kong issued by or on behalf of an organisation outside the Colony to which the Hong Kong trade union is not affiliated. Communication is prohibited only in respect of such documents.
    Mr. Gallacher: I take it from that answer that I am not misinformed, and that documents coming to the Hong Kong trade unions from outside organisations or people are stopped and are not allowed to be delivered. Is that not creating a very bad situation and one that cannot possibly help the British residents in Hong Kong?
    Mr. Piratin: Is it not the case that the Hong Kong trade unions are associated with Chinese trade unions and with the World Federation of Trade Unions? If they receive correspondence from those organisations are they permitted to have it?
    Mr. Creech Jones: No, Sir. I have given the conditions under which communications of this kind are received by the trade union movement in Hong Kong.

    Gold Coast (Sachs Commission)
    Mr. Braddockasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what conclusion was reached by the Sachs Commission set up to investigate irregularities in the Gold Coast Customs Department with regard to the evidence presented to the earlier Martindale Commission by Mr. Franklin, Director of the Gold Coast Criminal Investigation Department, and what action has been taken by the Government as a result of the Sachs Commission's report with regard to this evidence.
    Mr. Creech Jones: The report of the Sachs Commission stated that the fact that a C.I.D. memorandum was compiled and placed before the Martindale Commission was not of itself improper. No action by the Gold Coast Government appears to be called for.

  UGANDA
  Mr. Braddockasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he is aware that, on 15th June, 1949, King Metesa interviewed and intimidated the Bataka one by one; that he informed them he would imprison or deport them if they did not deny that they had sent a representative to Britain; and what action has been taken in this matter.
  Mr. Creech Jones: I am asking the Governor for information and will write to my hon. Friend when it is received.
  Mr. Braddock: Do I understand that the Minister will take action if this statement proves to be correct?
  Mr. Creech Jones: No, Sir. I must receive the facts before I consider any action.
  Mr. Braddockasked the Secretary of State for War what additional numbers of troops have been introduced into Uganda arising from the recent disturbance; and from where have they been brought.
  Mr. Braddock: I want to point out that I put this Question down to the Secretary of State for the Colonies, and I am astonished to find the Under-Secretary of State for War answering it.
  The Under-Secretary of State for War (Mr. Michael Stewart): It is not the policy to give information about the number of troops stationed in, or moved to, a particular area.
  Mr. Braddock: Are we to understand from this reply that the War Office is taking over the responsibilities of the Secretary of State for the Colonies?
  Mr. Stewart: No, Sir. My hon. Friend asked for information about the movement of troops, and naturally the War Department replies.
  Mr. Braddock: Does not my hon. Friend realise that the reason for sending the troops is the condition of affairs in the Colony? Is it not his opinion that in those circumstances the responsible Minister should have made the reply?
  Mr. Stewart: My hon. Friend has not asked about the reason for the disturbance, but what outside troops were sent there.
  Mr. Gallacher: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there are very serious allegations, with very much evidence to back them up, that an actual reign of terror is being carried on in Uganda—
  Mr. Speaker: The Question merely asks how many troops have been sent there, and nothing about a reign of terror.
  Mr. Gallacher: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker—
  Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman must not ask these irrelevant questions which have nothing to do with the Question on the Order Paper. They are mere propaganda, and I am getting a little tired of them.
  Mr. Gallacher: It has something to do with the Question.
  Mr. Speaker: No. The hon. Gentleman will resume his seat now.
  Mr. Gallacher rose—
  Mr. Speaker: I told the hon. Member to resume his seat, and that is the end of that.

  DIVORCE LAW
  Lieut.-Colonel Liptonasked the Prime Minister whether he will appoint a Royal Commission to inquire into the present state of the divorce law; and to make recommendations.
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): No, Sir.
  Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many people of all parties and creeds are convinced that the present state of the divorce law should be examined by a responsible body? Is he further aware that these continual refusals to appoint a Royal Commission will cause bitter disappointment to many thousands of men and women who are now condemned to life-long frustration and misery?
  The Prime Minister: This is not an appropriate time to appoint such a commission.

  NATIONAL SERVICE MEN (LEAVE)
  Mr. Sidney Shephardasked the Minister of Defence how much leave will normally be granted during the 18 months military service of National Service men.
  The Minister of Defence (Mr. A. V. Alexander): In the Army and R.A.F., National Service men who serve in this country for the full 18-month period of whole-time service will normally get 21 days' leave. Those who serve partly in North-West Europe will normally get a total of 28 days, at home and abroad, including embarkation leave. Those who serve partly abroad other than in North-West Europe will normally get a total of 35 days, at home and abroad, including embarkation leave. Owing to the special circumstances of service in the Royal Navy, National Service men will be granted leave under the same conditions as regulars. As already announced, National Service men will be granted 18 days' leave at the end of their whole-time service.
  Major Legge-Bourke: Is the right hon. Gentleman laying down any rules for granting home leave for those who are serving in Germany, according to the length of time that they have been there?
  Mr. Alexander: That question had better be put in detail to the Service Ministers. It is intended that the figures which I have given should be overall figures.
  Mr. Chetwynd: Can my right hon. Friend say how the 21 days' leave for people at home will be broken up, and whether it will be seven days every six months?
  Mr. Alexander: It will vary here and there. It is usual to give seven days' leave at the end of the basic training, and the subsequent leave is divided according to whether the men concerned are posted to home or overseas stations.

  FOOD SUPPLIES

    Sugar (Jam Making)
    Air-Commodore Harveyasked the Minister of Food if, in view of the good fruit crop, he will now reconsider his decision not to grant a further allocation of sugar to housewives to enable them to use homegrown fruit for jam making.
    The Minister of Food (Mr. Strachey): The special issues to housewives for making jam, which have already been announced, amount to 7 lb. as compared to 5 lb. last year. I am afraid that the need to cut our dollar purchases of sugar, which my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer explained to the House on 14th July, makes any further increase impossible.
    Air-Commodore Harvey: Would it not be more economical, in view of the very heavy fruit crop this year, to make another allocation of sugar? What does the Minister propose to do with the excess fruit crop, in any case?
    Mr. Strachey: I should not have thought, in view of the seven pounds allocated this year, that there would be difficulty in disposing of the fruit crop, but we shall see.
    Mrs. Jean Mann: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that 84 lb. of jam where there are four children and 56 lb. where there are four adults is a very reasonable amount of home made jam? Will he, therefore, close his ears to the appeal to increase sugar for jam making

    1369
    and let all housewives have more of this fruit which is being stored up by some people who have too much?
    Mr. Strachey: I would agree with my hon. Friend that the next most important consideration for sugar is the domestic ration that we have had to reduce.
    Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that the housewife who has her own fruit and uses the jam ration for sugar is getting five pounds less and not seven pounds more? I cannot get that fact into the Minister's head, nor into that of his assistant.
    Mr. Strachey: I am well aware that the housewife who has decided that she must never buy any jam at all may get less sugar but we know from our own figures that the average housewife is getting more sugar, let alone the housewife who is getting all her jam.
    Mr. Braddock: Would my right hon. Friend consider taking some of the sugar from the manufacturers who use it not for making jam but slush, and giving it to the housewife?
    Mr. Strachey: I would not agree with my hon. Friend's allegation.

    Potatoes
    Brigadier Raynerasked the Minister of Food what has been the loss on the recent movement of potatoes from Devon to East Anglia.
    Mr. Strachey: My Department did not send any potatoes from Devon to East Anglia.

    Fish Consignments, Helmsdale
    Sir David Robertsonasked the Minister of Food if he is aware that his regulations have been contravened by the consignment of seven boxes containing 49 salmon sent on 6th July to David Kind, Birmingham, by Boyd Brothers, Helmsdale, which was delivered to British Railways to be carried at the Government flat rate for white fish payable by his Department; and what action he is taking.
    Mr. Strachey: I am looking into this, allegation and will write to the hon. Member as soon as my inquiries are completed.
    Sir D. Robertson: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that a fortnight has elapsed since this consignment was discovered by the Inverness railway police, the Birmingham City police and myself, and that there is a grave risk that valuable evidence may be destroyed if his Department do not act quickly?
    Mr. Strachey: Legal proceedings are not primarily a matter for my Department. The allegation is a serious one and we are certainly investigating it most carefully. Because I cannot make an announcement today, that does not mean that no measures are being taken.
    Mr. Teeling: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that his reply appears in the OFFICIAL REPORT because the constituents of other Members besides those of the hon. Member for Streatham (Sir D. Robertson) may be interested?
    Mr. Strachey: Of course it will appear in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Teeling: The letter?
    Mr. Strachey: I thought the hon. Member meant this reply. The letter will not appear in the OFFICIAL REPORT, but a Question may be put down and answered.
    Sir D. Robertsonasked the Minister of Food the number of fish consignments sent by Boyd Brothers, Helmsdale, to David Kind, Birmingham, in June and July and the total amount of the carriage and cartage charges incurred for account of his Department; and if he is satisfied that his Department should be charged with the cost of the consignments.
    Mr. Strachey: This information is not yet available but I am inquiring into the several matters which the hon. Member has raised and will write to him as soon as possible.
    Sir D. Robertson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that if he has the slightest difficulty in getting the information which he is seeking he should send his officers to Helmsdale and ask any man or woman they meet in the streets, and they will be given any amount of evidence that carriage ad lib has been provided for wrongdoers in that area.
    Mr. Strachey: Again I repeat that the hon. Gentleman must not suppose that we are not taking action in these matters.

    Cocoa Beans (Prices)
    Mr. De la Bèreasked the Minister of Food whether, in connection with the purchase of cocoa beans by the Government, and the prices charged by his Department to the chocolate manufacturers, he can give an assurance that the price being charged to the manufacturers in this country is not greatly in excess of the price per cwt. of the prices ruling in New York.
    Mr. Strachey: Cocoa beans for use in exports are sold to manufacturers at prices closely related to current market levels, but I have agreed not to make frequent changes in the price charged for beans used in the manufacture of home-consumed goods, and consequently the prices in this field differ from the New York prices which fluctuate widely and rapidly. At the moment this price—for the raw material not used for exports, that is to say—is substantially above the New York price.
    Mr. De la Bère: Is it not a fact that the home manufacturers are charged by the Ministry 200s. per cwt., compared with the New York price of 95s. per cwt.? Does the right hon. Gentleman think that home manufacturers can carry on if the Government profiteer in this way? Is this not a shocking example of profiteering by the Government at the expense of the consumers?
    Mr. Strachey: I could not agree with any of the hon. Gentleman's allegations.
    Mr. W. Fletcher: The right hon. Gentleman used the phrase "current market levels." Would he say what he means by it?
    Mr. Strachey: I was referring to the New York price.
    Mr. Wilson Harris: Has not the Ministry of Food been making a great profit at the cost ultimately of the consumers of chocolate?
    Mr. Strachey: We shall see at the end of the year what profit and loss is made. Because we subsidise some foods very heavily, that does not mean that we do not take a profit out of others.
    Mr. De la Bère: Do not the children and the public suffer as a result?

    Meat Products Working Party (Membership)
    Mr. Royleasked the Minister of Food why the National Federation of Meat Traders, which has in its membership upwards of 25,000 manufacturers of meat products in England and Wales, was not asked to submit names for membership of the Meat Products Working Party when other organisations representing far fewer meat manufacturers were so invited.
    Mr. Strachey: I regret that in view of the necessity of keeping the number of members of this group within a practicable limit for a working party it was not found possible to invite the main organisations of retail butchers to nominate members. I appreciate, however, that retail butchers are closely interested in questions affecting the hygiene of meat manufacture. My two retail meat trade advisers, who are practical butchers, will advise the Working Party on matters particularly affecting retail butchers. The National Federation of Meat Traders will be invited to give written and oral evidence.
    Mr. Royle: Does not my right hon. Friend think that as long as other organisations are actually represented on this Working Party it would have been advantageous to the Working Party to have representatives from the organisation which covers the largest number of manufacturers?
    Mr. Strachey: The organisations represented on the Working Party are not those strictly concerned with the matter under investigation. We thought it better to have none rather than all of those organisations.

  FRUIT AND VEGETABLES, IMPORTS
  Mr. David Rentonasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will state the periods at which he intends to grant open general licences for the imports of fruit and vegetables between now and 31st December; and whether he will make a statement of the principles guiding his policy in this matter.
  The Secretary for Overseas Trade (Mr. Bottomley): There are at present no open general licences for fruit and vegetables,

  1373
  and the hon. Member may have in mind open individual licences which are in operation on a fairly extensive scale for fruit and vegetables. In most cases these are issued in accordance with the commitments undertaken in our bilateral agreement with other countries, and I cannot say in advance whether any further commitments of this kind will be undertaken between now and December. I would, however, refer the hon. Member to the statement made by my right hon. Friend on 7th July in answer to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Horabin) about the policy of His Majesty's Government in the matter of relaxing import restrictions.
  Mr. Renton: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this Question was put down, as many similar Questions were last year, to the Minister of Food? Does the fact that he has taken it upon himself to answer the Question mean that the President of the Board of Trade is now responsible for policy with regard to the importation of fruit and vegetables? If so, is he aware that if the President of the Board of Trade manages to avoid the frightful mistakes made by the Minister of Food last year there will be general rejoicing among horticulturists.
  Mr. Bottomley: The President of the Board of Trade is responsible for import licences upon the recommendation of the Ministry of Food.
  Mr. Baldwin: When making these bilateral arrangements, will the President consult the Minister of Agriculture to find out what is the prospective production of fruit and vegetables in this country, so that in making these agreements we do not sell the British farmer for the sake of getting an export trade?
  Mr. Bottomley: Indeed, there is full consultations before we grant these import licences.
  Mr. Tolley: Will my hon. Friend agree that it is the responsibility of his Ministry and that of the Ministries of Food and Agriculture to see that the consumer is also studied?
  Mr. Joynson-Hicks: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether his Department plays any part in the granting of the personal licences for the importation of fruit and vegetables, and, if so, can the Department ensure that fruit and vegetables
  1374
  are not imported so as to spoil the appetite of the public before English fruit and vegetables come on the market?
  Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Can the hon. Gentleman assure us that consultations also take place with the Secretary of State for Scotland, who is the Minister responsible for agriculture in Scotland?

RAILWAY WAGES CLAIM (CONCILIATION BOARD)
Mr. Dobbie(by Private Notice) asked the Minister of Labour why he has amended his original terms of reference to the Railway Conciliation Board in view of the fact that the trade unions representing the majority of railway workers and the Railway Executive have accepted his original proposals.
The Minister of Labour (Mr. Isaacs): The terms of reference originally proposed were drawn up in consultation with all parties represented, but it was fully understood at the time that each party was perfectly free to reach such decision regarding participation as seemed right and proper in the circumstances. In their letter to me explaining why they were unable to accept the full terms of reference, the Confederation of the Engineering and Shipbuilding Trade Unions pointed out that the machinery of the Railway Shopmen's National Council has not been utilised. I do not find myself able to contest this view and in the circumstances it is necessary to amend the terms of reference so as to confine the proceedings of the Conciliation Board to questions relating to the conciliation and salaried grades. It is in respect of these workers that constitutional machinery has been exhausted and by appointing the Conciliation Board, I have made available to the parties an ad hoc piece of machinery which I hope will help to solve the complicated and difficult problems that confront that section of the industry.
Mr. Dobbie: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his action in altering these terms of reference, as well as his answer today, will cause disillusionment and disappointment in every grade of the railway service in the country, and may well precipitate a dispute with the railway industry?
Mr. Isaacs: All the other parties have accepted this obligation to carry out the recommendations of the Board. If those with whom my hon. Friend is associated decide at this juncture that they cannot take part in this movement, which will give them an opportunity of settling the wages and conditions of some 80 per cent. of their members—and the way is still open for the other organisations to step in—one can hardly blame the Ministry of Labour if two of the unions cannot agree to the terms of reference.
Mr. Cecil Poole: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that there are about 130,000 railway shopmen, of whom 73 per cent. are inside the organisation of the National Union of Railwaymen, and how can he deny to 95,000 railway shopmen the benefit of this conciliation machinery? Does he not realise that he is laying up for himself an awful lot of trouble?
Mr. Isaacs: It is necessary now and then for a Minister to defend himself. What the Minister has done is to assist the National Union of Railwaymen to find means of settlement outside their own conciliation machinery. In the other case, the union are standing by their machinery. They say they want to proceed through their own organisation and their own machinery. They say that they are quite willing to take part in these discussions but that they will not accept as binding the awards of the Conciliation Board. The three unions, the National Union of Railwaymen, the A.S.L.E. and F. and the Railway Clerks Association are prepared to do so. I ask my friends in the National Union of Railwaymen whether they want the proceedings to go on with people sitting there and taking part who are not bound to accept the conditions to which the others are bound. If they sit down and look at the matter as reasonable people they can get on with this part of the job. Meanwhile, we can see what we can do to bring in the others and cover the whole lot. After all, the railway shopmen are covered by other agreements.
Mr. Harrison: Will my right hon. Friend say whether he is satisfied that the Railway Shopmen's National Council can function now that he has set up a new tribunal to go into the whole question of wages and conditions on the railways in all departments? How is it possible that the Railway Shopmen's
1376
National Council can function under such conditions?
Mr. Isaacs: It is evident that the unions concerned think it can function because they insist upon it functioning.
Mr. Mikardo: Is not the position taken up by the Confederation the only possible one for them in view of their large membership in other industries? Is my right hon. Friend aware that the compromise he has reached will be supported by the overwhelming majority of organised workers throughout the country?
Mr. Isaacs: I do not want at this stage to express an opinion, but I would like to say that I do not think the Confederation in its attitude at the moment is unreasonable.
Mr. C. Poole: May I ask the Minister whether it will be pertinent, in view of his statement, for the conditions of service of railway shopmen to be considered by the Conciliation Board, provided the other parties go forward with the presentation of their claims to that Board?
Mr. Isaacs: I think it would be best if I were to quote from the official statement in which it is said:
"The Minister, whilst regretting that the Confederation will not be able to participate, has expressed his readiness to restore the terms of reference should the Confederation on reconsideration feel that they would be able to participate on the basis of the full original terms."

STRIKE, LONDON DOCKS
Mr. Oliver Stanley(by Private Notice) asked the Minister of Labour whether he has any statement to make about the present position at the London Docks?
Mr. Isaacs: The number of men on strike this morning totals 15,509; 45 ships are idle; four ships are under-manned; 92 are being worked by Service labour. Additional Service labour will be allocated to the full extent required to maintain supplies vital to the life of the community. The Government are conscious of the deep debt of gratitude that the nation owes to the Service personnel who are working so magnificently at this emergency task, and I am sure the House will wish to be associated with our expression of thanks. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]

1377
Late last night the National Dock Labour Board issued a statement which contained an order that all dock workers now on strike should resume at 7.45 a.m. on Thursday, 21st July, 1949. It added that failure to return to work would jeopardise the every existence of the Scheme. This statement seemed to contain the implication that failure to return to work on Thursday morning might be followed by the end of the National Scheme. There is, of course, no foundation for any suggestion of this kind. Any question of modifying the provisions of the Scheme or of suspending or terminating it is one that can only be settled by the Government and is subject to the views of Parliament.
In the circumstances the Government felt it necessary, without delay, to issue an announcement that they were not contemplating any step to bring to an end the National Dock Labour Scheme. The Government are, of course, in accord with the Board in urging the men to return to work, and they fully support the Board in their efforts to reassure the men as to the way the Board operate the Scheme and intend to continue.
As regards the immediate position, I have this morning received from the Executive of the Lightermen's Union a statement in the following terms:
"The Executive Council of the Watermen, Lightermen, Tugmen and Bargemen's Union are holding a mass meeting of their members at Poplar Town Hall, Bow Road, E., on Thursday, 21st, at 11 a.m., to urge a resumption of work. They ask the members of the Rough Goods Section and also members employed on vital work who are actually at work at the time of the meeting, to carry on as normal."
The Executive have asked me to secure the maximum publicity to this statement, particularly that part urging the men actually at work at the time of the meeting to carry on as normal, and I gladly do so.
Mr. Stanley: Has the attention of the right hon. Gentleman been called to a statement by the Chairman of the National Dock Labour Board which, I understand, appears in the evening Press, openly criticising not only the action the Government took last night but their whole handling of this strike? Is it not undesirable, and likely to do great damage, that there should be this open wrangle between the Government
1378
and a body appointed by the Government? In view of the seriousness of the situation I ask the Prime Minister whether, if on consideration we feel that this could only be improved by some opportunity for the House to discuss it, he would be willing, through the usual channels, to afford the facilities?
The Prime Minister: I would gladly consider that with right hon. Gentlemen opposite to see whether it would be useful at this juncture.
Sir John Anderson: Arising out of the statement of the Minister of Labour, I should like to ask him or the Prime Minister three questions. Does he or does he not agree that the Dock Labour Board, in the communiqué that they issued yesterday, were acting within their competencé unaffected by the Emergency Regulations? Secondly, is it not self-evident that when a body of men deliberately and obstinately persist in violating the clear conditions of a scheme under which they are employed, that scheme is inevitably placed in jeopardy? And in that connection, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman how the action of the Government in the early hours of this morning is to be reconciled with the reply that the Minister of Labour gave on 4th July to my right hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler) in the course of which he said this:
"The men must realise that by their present conduct they may be imperilling the future of the Dock Labour Scheme."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th July, 1949; Vol. 466, c. 1797–8.]
Thirdly, do right hon. Gentlemen realise that the action taken in the early hours of this morning, at which I personally was aghast—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speech."]—has been interpreted—
Mr. Gallacher: Suppose I tried that?
Sir J. Anderson: —and is bound to be interpreted, as a weakening on the part of the Government?
Mr. Isaacs: It would have been helpful had I had some notice of these questions, so that the actual facts could have been marshalled, The first point is whether the Dock Labour Board are acting within their competence, and it runs into the second one, as to whether the action of the men was putting the scheme in jeopardy. The real point at the moment is that nobody questions the right of the

1379
Dock Labour Board to administer the scheme but, when others are acting in co-operation with them in the steps that are being taken to secure a return to work—as is evidenced by the announcement I have made about a successful result in one direction—it makes things difficult if, at that critical moment, somebody, according to the way it was published, tells the men to return to work at such and such a time on Thursday morning, failing which the scheme is likely to be jeopardised. The two things must be taken in their relation one to the other.
The other point is this: it is one thing for a Minister to say that the scheme is in jeopardy, because the Minister is responsible to Parliament and Parliament must have a voice in this matter. It is another thing for a Board charged only with carrying out the scheme to make that statement in that connection at that moment. As to whether these steps should have been taken at this time, I again draw attention to the fact that we were in these negotiations and that, as Minister of Labour handling this matter, I was not aware of the statement being made.
The statement was an excellent one, carrying good advice, except for the point that gave the men today a first-class talking point, namely, that now their scheme is threatened. Time—these next few hours—will show whether the threat in that statement has had a more valuable effect than the fact that the Government are not taking that step at this moment. For right or wrong, for good or ill, having the responsibility of handling this matter, knowing the kind of men we have to deal with, I thought the best line to follow was the line of as much conciliation as possible to get the men back; for, with 15,000 men out, although we are unloading the ships, the nation is suffering, and I would rather see the men go back to work somewhat willingly, than dragoon them back to work and find ourselves with a lot more trouble.
Mr. Daines: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the dock workers of London will appreciate the Government's action in regard to their statement on the Dock Labour Board, and that this is further evidence of the Government's under-
1380
standing of the real interest of the dock workers despite every provocation?
Mr. W. J. Brown: May I ask the Minister whether he has seen in the Press today the statement that Mr. Harry Davis, the President of the Canadian Seamen's Union, is flying to this country today with the object of addressing the strikers tomorrow; whether the Government propose to take any steps about this; whether they propose to do anything about Mr. Popovitch; and, finally, what use they are proposing to make of the emergency powers that we gave them a week ago?
Mr. Isaacs: We are, of course, aware of Mr. Davis's return to this country. We are aware also that he is coming back with a mandate from the W.F.T.U. at Marseilles, and that an attempt is being made to create this kind of strike in other countries. But the Government have only certain restricted powers with regard to the conduct of British subjects from other lands who are in this country. Whatever powers we have will be exercised, but we do not have the powers which the Dominions possess against British nationals in their countries.
Mr. Stanley: It is now a week since this House discussed and passed the Emergency Regulations. Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House what use has been made of them and whether any action has been taken during the week which could not have been taken under the powers which existed before the Emergency Regulations were asked for?
Mr. Isaacs: By taking the Emergency Powers we have set up the Emergency Committee. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that even if no concrete action is apparent from their action, the Committee have had to settle down, make contact, become acquainted with the situation and obtain understanding. [Laughter.] Hon. Gentlemen opposite may laugh—I quite understand that there is many an hon. Gentleman opposite who could go to the docks tomorrow and run them without any trouble whatever. The gentlemen on the Committee are busily engaged. As soon as they are ready to make statements, they will make them, but I have no authoritative control over them. I know that they are visiting the port areas, they are contacting the people

1381
and are making their arrangements; and, should it be necessary, I am sure that they will announce what steps they propose to take.
Mr. Stanley: Are we really to understand that this Emergency Committee—note the title "Emergency Committee"—comprising, presumably, people who were selected because they could manage this thing, are still, a week later, settling down, getting to know their way about the docks and making contacts? Are they not yet doing anything?
Mr. Isaacs: Ninety ships are being unloaded. Steps have had to be taken to see that the troops are cared for, that they go into the docks, that the right ships are chosen for unloading, and things of that kind. [HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense."] What is the good of my trying to give an answer if hon. Members opposite say, "Nonsense"? We hear a lot of nonsense in this House, especially in the place where the noise is coming from now. As far as the Emergency Committee are concerned, they are doing their task. If they do wrong, they will have to answer to somebody. [HON. MLMBERS: "To whom?"] To this House, I expect.
Mr. Arthur Lewis: With a view to getting a speedy settlement of this regrettable dispute, will the Minister agree that if the men make an immediate resumption of work, he will carry out the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherhithe (Mr. Mellish) and appoint an independent fact-finding commission to go into this whole question?
Mr. Isaacs: I cannot make any conditions for the men to return to work. They are expected to return, and it is their duty to return. On the other hand, we are collecting a very interesting little dossier of the steps leading up to the dispute and what has been done since, and at the appropriate time it will be released.
Mr. Quintin Hogg: Whatever may be the position as regards the statement by the Dock Labour Board, does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that these divided voices in high places must necessarily jeopardise the chances of a settlement; and with whom did he consult before authorising the issue of the Government's statement? Will he give us some indication of what steps he is taking to prevent the continuance of this
1382
wrangle between two authorities in the matter?
Mr. Isaacs: There was consultation between the appropriate Ministers and steps are being taken, and have been taken, to see that there is no divided voice on this important matter.
Mr. Gallacher: In view of this very obvious and very serious mistake of the Dock Labour Board, would not the Minister agree that it is highly probable that similar mistakes were made by the Dock Labour Board in bringing about this lock-out; and may I also ask him, in view of the reference to the name of one of the strike leaders, whether it is not a fact that other people in this country have replaced their foreign names by English names?
Mr. Isaacs: I cannot understand what the second part of that question has to do with me. As far as the question of the lock-out, or strike, is concerned, if the people who have stirred up the dockers, and who have been encouraged by certain Members of this House, were to be shifted out of the way now—if we only had the power—we would stop the strike tomorrow.
Hon. Members: How?
Mr. Stanley: The right hon. Gentleman has just said, "if we only had the power." If the Government want more powers, why do they not come to the House, explain what those powers are, and ask the House to grant them? We thought that last Wednesday we were giving to the Government all the powers they needed. If they need, as it now appears, more powers, let them come to the House and ask for them.
Mr. Peter Thorneycroft: Further to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg), is the Minister aware that according to Lord Ammon, who is Chairman of the Dock Labour Board, the Emergency Committee have not consulted him or that Board once since this affair started, and must not the Government accept a very grave measure of responsibility?
Mr. Isaccs: I should have thought that the hon. Member, with his knowledge of the law, would have at least ascertained what evidence there was to support that statement, because there is none.
Mr. Awbery: Is the Minister aware that, even though some 15,000 men at the London Docks are not working, there are 110,000 dockers in the rest of the country who are working, and that whatever action he takes in regard to London must not prejudice in any way the position of the dockers of the rest of the country as far as the Dock Labour Scheme is concerned?
Mr. Henry Strauss: The statement issued last night mentioned the Emergency Committee. Am I right in understanding that, should the Emergency Committee wish to make a public statement, they could do so, or do they have to make a statement through Downing Street; and if the answer is that they can make the statement themselves, will they be liable to the same treatment as the Dock Labour Board have received from the Government?
Mr. Isaacs: The Emergency Committee have the authority to make any statement they think fit. I do not propose to enter into the mischievous part of the hon. Gentleman's question.
Mr. Stokes: On a point of Order. May I call your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the fact that there is no Motion before the House; and is not this getting to the stage of an acrimonious Debate?
Mr. Speaker: These are questions which are being asked. I am trying to avoid speeches.
Mr. Jennings: In view of the statement issued by the Government yesterday, will the Minister tell the House and the country how he expects the Dock Labour Board to carry out their duties from now onwards after their dignity and responsibility have been so much lessened by that statement?
Mr. Isaacs: I should like to remind the House that there is a Joint Industrial Council for the industry to which matters of disagreement can properly be taken.
Mr. Pickthorn: Can the right hon. Gentleman explain what he meant by saying that the Emergency Committee are responsible to this House?
Mr. Isaacs: To the extent that questions might be asked in this House of
1384
the Minister responsible as to the conduct of the Emergency Committee. Surely, this Committee must be answerable to questions in this House about their conduct.
Mr. Keeling: Does the right hon. Gentleman adhere to the statement that he has no authority over the Emergency Committee; and, if he has no authority over them, can he say who has?
Mr. Isaacs: I do not think I made that statement. I will check it up in HANSARD. In any case, the point is that the Emergency Committee are appointed and acting under the authority of the Ministry of Transport.
Colonel Ropner: I understood the Minister to say that if he had certain powers he could stop the strike tomorrow. Would he explain to the House what powers he requires in order to do so?
Mr. Stanley: In view of the statement that the Minister of Transport is responsible for the action of the Emergency Committee, and works through them, may I ask if the Minister of Transport was one of the Ministers consulted before the issue of the statement from Downing Street last night?
Mr. Isaacs: The answer I give is that I am not prepared to say exactly who was and who was not there.
Mr. Harrison: Will my right hon. Friend resist the obvious attempts made by hon. Members opposite to stampede him into taking action—[Interruption.] Will my right hon. Friend resist the efforts of hon. Members opposite to stampede him into taking unwise action which will make the position considerably worse than it is at present?
Mr. Hogg: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain what he meant when he said to the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) that if he had certain powers to shift those who were stirring up these men, he could finish the strike? As I understand it, a person who aids and abets a breach of a regulation is already committing an offence under it and if what the right hon. Gentleman says is true, or has any basis of truth, why does he not institute proceedings?
Mr. Isaacs: What I had in mind when I answered the hon. Member for West Fife was that if a British seaman was carrying on conduct of this sort in one of the British Dominions, they have power to deport him, but if a Canadian seaman is carrying that on over here we have no power to—[HON. MEMBERS: "Take it."] Wait a moment. We cannot take it by putting a penny in the slot, but have to draft a Bill, come to Parliament and face all the criticism of hon. Members opposite about interfering with the liberty of the subject. The point I was making is that this has all been done by mischief-makers and if we had had the powers, we might have stopped it long ago.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: We must get on to the next business. The Deputy-Chairman of Ways and Means.

NATIONAL PARKS AND ACCESS TO THE COUNTRYSIDE BILL
The Deputy-Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Bowles): I wish to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that on Third Reading of
the National Parks Bill last night, by inadvertence, I failed to call for the King's Consent to be signified. I wish to express my regret.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. William Whiteley): I beg to move,
"That the proceedings on the Third Reading of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Bill on 19th July, 1949, be null and void and that the Bill be read the Third time tomorrow."

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ordered:
"That this day Business other than the Business of Supply may be taken before Ten o'Clock."—[The Prime Minister.]
Motion made, and Question put,
"That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]
The House divided: Ayes, 256; Noes, 123.

Division No. 216.]

AYES

[3.57 p.m.

Adams, Richard (Balham)

Chamberlain, R. A.

Fairhurst, F.

Albu, A. H.

Champion, A. J.

Farthing, W. J.

Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

Chater, D.

Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)

Anderson, A. (Motherwell)

Chetwynd, G. R.

Follick, M.

Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.

Cluse, W. S.

Foot, M. M.

Austin, H. Lewis

Cocks, F. S.

Forman, J. C.

Awbery, S. S.

Coldrick, W.

Ganley, Mrs. C. S.

Ayles, W. H.

Collick, P.

George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)

Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.

Collindridge, F.

Gibbins, J.

Bacon, Miss A.

Colman, Miss G. M.

Gilzean, A.

Balfour, A.

Cooper, G.

Glanville, J. E. (Consett)

Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.

Corlett, Dr. J.

Gooch, E. G.

Barton, C.

Cove, W. G.

Goodrich, H. E.

Battley, J. R.

Crawley, A.

Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Wakefield)

Bechervaise, A. E.

Crossman, R. H. S.

Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)

Benson, G.

Cullen, Mrs.

Grenfell, D. R.

Berry, H.

Daggar, G.

Grey, C. F.

Beswick, F.

Daines, P.

Grierson, E.

Binns, J.

Davies, Edward (Burslem)

Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)

Blackburn, A. R.

Davies, Ernest (Enfield)

Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)

Blyton, W. R.

Davies, Harold (Leek)

Gruffydd, Prof. W. J.

Boardman, H.

Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S. W.)

Guest, Dr. L. Haden

Bottomley, A. G.

Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)

Gunter, R. J.

Bowen, R.

Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil

Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl. Exch'ge)

Deer, G.

Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.

Braddock, T. (Mitcham)

Delargy, H. J.

Hardman, D. R.

Bramall, E. A.

Dobbie, W.

Hardy, E. A.

Brook, D. (Halifax)

Dodds, N. N.

Harrison, J.

Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)

Driberg, T. E. N.

Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)

Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

Dumpleton, C. W.

Herbison, Miss M.

Brown, T. J. (Ince)

Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

Hobson, C. R.

Brown, W. J. (Rugby)

Edelman, M.

Holman, P.

Burden, T. W.

Edwards, Rt. Hon. Sir C. (Bedwellty)

Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)

Burke, W. A.

Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)

Horabin, T. L.

Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)

Evans, Albert (Islington, W.)

Hoy, J.

Callaghan, James

Evans, John (Ogmore)

Hubbard, T.

Carmichael, James

Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)

Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)

Castle, Mrs. B. A.

Ewart, R.

Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

Hughes, H. D. (W'lverh'ton, W.)

Neal, H. (Claycross)

Sparks, J. A.

Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)

Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)

Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)

Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford)

Stokes, R. R.

Irvine, A. J. (Liverpool)

Noel-Buxton, Lady

Stross, Dr. B.

Irving, W. J. (Tottenham, N.)

Oldfield, W. H.

Stubbs, A. E.

Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

Oliver, G. H.

Swingler, S.

Jeger, G. (Winchester)

Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)

Sylvester, G. O.

Jones, Rt. Hon. A. C. (Shipley)

Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

Symonds, A. L.

Jones, D. T. (Hartlepool)

Pargiter, G. A.

Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)

Keenan, W.

Parker, J.

Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

Kenyon, C.

Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)

Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)

King, E. M.

Paton, J. (Norwich)

Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)

Kinley, J.

Pearson, A.

Thomas, George (Cardiff)

Kirby, B. V.

Peart, T. F.

Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)

Kirkwood, Rt. Hon. D.

Piratin, P.

Thurtle, Ernest

Lang, G.

Poole, Cecil (Lichfield)

Timmons, J.

Lee, F. (Hulme)

Popplewell, E.

Titterington, M. F.

Leonard, W.

Porter, E. (Warrington)

Tolley, L.

Lever, N. H.

Porter, G. (Leeds)

Usborne, Henry

Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)

Price, M. Philips

Vernon, Maj. W. F.

Lindsay, K. M. (Comb'd Eng. Univ.)

Pritt, D. N.

Walkden, E.

Lipson, D. L.

Proctor, W. T.

Walker, G. H.

Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.

Pryde, D. J.

Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)

Logan, D. G.

Randall, H. E.

Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)

Longden, F.

Ranger, J.

Warbey, W. N.

McAdam, W.

Rankin, J.

Watkins, T. E.

McAllister, G.

Rees-Williams, D. R.

Watson, W. M.

McEntee, V. La T.

Reid, T. (Swindon)

Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)

McGhee, H. G.

Rhodes, H.

West, D. G.

McKay, J. (Wallsend)

Ridealgh, Mrs. M.

Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John (Edinb'gh, E.)

Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N. W.)

Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)

White, H. (Derbyshire, N. E.)

McKinlay, A. S.

Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)

Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

McLeavy, F.

Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

Wigg, George

MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

Rogers, G. H. R.

Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)

MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

Ross, William (Kilmarnock)

Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)

Macpherson, T. (Romford)

Royle, C.

Williams, D. J. (Neath)

Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

Segal, Dr. S.

Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)

Mann, Mrs. J.

Sharp, Granville

Williams, Ronald (Wigan)

Mathers, Rt. Hon. George

Shawcross, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (St. Helens)

Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith. S.)

Middleton, Mrs. L.

Shurmer, P.

Williams, W. R. (Heston)

Mikardo, Ian.

Silverman, J. (Erdington)

Willis, E.

Mitchison, G. R.

Simmons, C. J.

Wills, Mrs. E. A.

Monslow, W.

Skeffington-Lodge, T. C.

Woods, G. S.

Moody, A. S.

Skinnard, F. W.

Wyatt, W.

Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)

Smith, C. (Colchester)

Yates, V. F.

Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)

Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)

Morris-Jones, Sir. H.

Smith, S. H. (Hull, S. W.)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, E.)

Snow, J. W.

Mr. Hannan and Mr. Bowden.

Moyle, A.

Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

NOES

Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.

Elliot, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Walter

Linstead, H. N.

Amory, D. Heathcoat

Erroll, F. J.

Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)

Anderson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Scot, Univ.)

Fletcher, W. (Bury)

Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)

Baldwin, A. E.

Foster, J. G. (Northwich)

Low, A. R. W.

Barlow, Sir J.

Fraser, H. C. P. (Stone)

Lucas, Major Sir J.

Baxter, A. B.

Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)

Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.

Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.

Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir D. P. M.

McCallum, Maj. D.

Bennett, Sir P.

Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)

Macdonald, Sir P. (I. of Wight)

Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)

Gammans, L. D.

McFarlane, C. S.

Boothby, R.

George, Maj. Rt. Hn. G. Lloyd (P'ke)

Mackeson, Brig. H. R.

Bower, N.

Glyn, Sir R.

McKie, J. H. (Galloway)

Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.

Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.

Maclean, F. H. R. (Lancaster)

Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G.

Gridley, Sir A.

Maitland, Comdr J. W.

Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)

Manningham-Buller, R. E.

Bullock, Capt. M.

Harris, F. W. (Croydon, N.)

Marlowe, A. A. H.

Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (S'ffr'n W'ld'n)

Head, Brig. A. H.

Marsden, Capt. A.

Carson, E.

Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C.

Marshall, D. (Bodmin)

Challen, C.

Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

Marshall, S. H. (Sutton)

Channon, H.

Hogg, Hon. Q.

Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.

Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.

Holmes, Sir J. Stanley (Harwich)

Neven-Spence, Sir B.

Cooper-Key, E. M.

Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)

Nield, B. (Chester)

Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.

Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.)

Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.

Crowder, Capt. John E.

Jeffreys, General Sir G.

Nutting, Anthony

Davidson, Viscountess

Jennings, R.

Peake, Rt. Hon. O.

De la Bère, R.

Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.

Peto, Brig. C. H. M.

Digby, Simon Wingfield

Keeling, E. H.

Pickthorn, K.

Dodds-Parker, A. D.

Kerr, Sir J. Graham

Raikes, H. V.

Donner, P. W.

Langford-Holt, J.

Ramsay, Maj. S.

Drayson, G. B.

Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.

Rayner, Brig. R.

Drewe, C.

Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.

Renton, D.

Duthie, W. S.

Lennox-Boyd, A. T.

Roberts, P. G. (Ecclesall)

Eccles, D. M.

Lindsay, M. (Solihull)

Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)

1388

1389

Ropner, Col. L.

Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)

Ward, Hon. G. R.

Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonderry)

Studholme, H. G.

Watt, Sir G. S. Harvie

Scott, Lord W.

Sutcliffe, H.

Webbe, Sir H. (Abbey)

Shephard, S. (Newark)

Taylor, Vice-Adm E. A. (P dd't'n, S.)

Wheatley, Col. M. J. (Dorset, E.)

Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)

Teeling, William

Williams, C. (Torquay)

Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W.

Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)

York, C.

Smithers, Sir W.

Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)

Young, Sir A. S. L. (Partick)

Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.

Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.

Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

Touche, G. C.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Strauss, Henry (English Universities)

Turton, R. H.

Major Conant and

Lieut.-Colonel Bromley Davenport.

Question put, and agreed to.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  SUPPLY
  [23RD ALLOTTED DAY]
  Considered in Committee.
  [Major MILNER in the Chair]
  The Chairman: Before I propose the Question, I think I should inform the Committee that a large number of Members have indicated their wish to speak in this Debate. As time is limited, and in the hope that it will be possible for a larger number of Members to take part than is normally the case, I think I should indicate to the Committee that I propose to consider, as one of the factors in selecting speakers, the factor of time; that is to say—and, of course, this does not include speakers from the Front Bench—that the claims of hon. Members who indicate to me that they will take a reasonable time in their speeches will have that factor taken into consideration when the selection is made. I hope that thereby it will be possible for a larger number of hon. Members to take part in the Debate than has been the case on some recent occasions.
  Mr. Oliver Stanley: Perhaps it may be useful if I tell the Committee that unless there are some unforseen circumstances we hope, on a Supply Day next week, to have half-a-day for the more detailed discussion of the African question and it may, therefore, suit some hon. Members to postpone their speeches to that day.
  The Chairman: I am obliged to the right hon. Member for that indication, which will be helpful.

  CIVIL ESTIMATES, 1949–50
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That a further sum, not exceeding £35, be granted to His Majesty towards defraying the charges for the following services connected with Colonial Affairs for the year ending on the 31st March, 1950, namely:

  £

  Class II, Vote 9, Colonial Office

  10

  Class II, Vote 10, Colonial and Middle Eastern Services

  10

  Class II, Vote 10, Colonial and Middle Eastern Services (Supplementary Estimate)

  5

  Class II, Vote 12, Development and Welfare (Colonies, &c.)

  10

  Total

  £35."

  —[Mr. Glenvil Hall.]

  COLONIAL AFFAIRS
  4.5 p.m.
  The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Creech Jones): The Committee will have received, during the last few weeks, a number of reports concerned with Colonial affairs.
  Vice-Admiral Taylor: On a point of Order. Is it not possible to stop the hammering that is going on outside. I do not normally hear very well and at the moment I cannot hear anything at all of what the right hon. Gentleman is saying.
  The Chairman: I am obliged to the hon. and gallant Member. I will give instructions accordingly.
  Mr. Creech Jones: We have tried to inform the Committee by producing this year the first of a series of regional reports—a report concerned with the Far East. We hope in following years to cover different regions of the Colonial Empire, and that will be in addition to the report which is normally received from the Comptroller of Development in the West Indies. Other reports are in the hands of the Committee—one, the report of the Colonial Development Corporation and another, a White Paper setting out the schemes under the Colonial Development and Welfare Act. I hope that in a day or so a further paper will be available concerned with colonial research.
  The Committee's attention will undoubtedly be concentrated today on the general survey which has been published on the Colonial Territories, 1948–49. I think it will generally be agreed that, as a people, we may take a reasonable pride in the work going forward in our Colonial Territories, and the work described in the general report is, I think, a great tribute to our colonial officers overseas as well as to the staff of the Colonial Office itself. I would hasten to say that, obviously, we are not satisfied with the situation as it is at the present time. We are all guilty of shortcomings and inadequacies of treatment of some of the problems confronting us in our Colonial Territories. Nevertheless, I think the work which has been done is sound and will bear the test of time.
  It is not my intention this afternoon to cover the ground of the report before the Committee. I want only to refer to some of the features of the past year and to

  1393
  some of the problems confronting us today in regard to our development work. But I would ask the Committee in considering colonial development, to keep in mind that, while this House must exercise responsibility in regard to the shaping and development and application of policy in the territories overseas, we are, at the same time, devolving to those territories and their local governments a great deal of responsibility, and consequently they are in charge of the detailed administration of policy in their own countries. We cannot unduly interfere with that administration without to some extent weakening their own responsibility for the administration of their country.
  I would add that most of our Colonial Territories are going through a state of transition in regard to political, economic and social changes, and we cannot expect that those changes will be carried through without trouble, difficulty or disturbance. It is natural that we should do all in our power to create conditions for orderly development by reducing so far as is possible the internal strains and securing not only the internal co-operation of the peoples in the territory itself, but also their full co-operation with us in the work which we too are trying to do.
  It is a welcome fact that in this country in recent years there has been a great quickening of interest in colonial affairs. Following on that very great stimulus to public interest, the meeting of the African Conference in the autumn of last year, we have been able to stage during the past month not only an exhibition of some merit, but also a Colonial Month which in various quarters has roused considerable curiosity and interest. So far as the exhibition is concerned, there has been a record of attendances for an exhibition of that kind. No fewer than 211,000 persons have been admitted to that exhibition. The demand and the interest are so great that the exhibition has been extended and will probably continue for another month.
  Apart from the extraordinary response of the public so far as attendance at the exhibition is concerned, there has also been a very remarkable demand for literature, reports and publications about the Colonial Empire itself. Some of our stocks of literature, some of the reports by the Colonies, have been completely
  1394
  exhausted by the demand; and nearly all of this literature has had to be purchased. I would thank the various learned societies, public bodies and commercial undertakings who have played so active a part during the Colonial Month. We are indeed indebted to them for the work they have done in getting over to a wider public the problems confronting us in our Colonial Territories. In the last few years we have tried to expand our information services to the public, and the Committee will be well aware of the work now being done in regard to the making of films about colonial life; in extending knowledge through broadcasting; in the work in the schools and through the Press and in other ways.
  What is the broad purpose we have in mind in regard to colonial policy? None of us in these days seek the mere satisfaction of colouring red great areas on the map. Our effort is to bring stability, good order and mutual prosperity to the world; to do this with the co-operation of the colonial peoples by building up in the Colonial Territories responsibility and the conditions of good living. Hon. Members will recognise that this laudable purpose can be achieved only in so far as it evokes the response, understanding and the confidence of the colonial peoples themselves. We wish them to appreciate the values which actuate us in our own affairs. Consequently we are anxious in our relations with the colonial peoples that there should be a steady elimination of all discrimination and full co-operation with them in the great tasks which have to be performed.
  That brings me to a consideration of the problems of the Colonial Service. The Committee is well aware that during the last three or four years following the war we have recruited for the administrative and technical staffs—the professional staffs of the Colonial Service—no fewer than 5,000 men and women. In addition, the Crown Agents have recruited something like 3,500. During the past half year we have filled 663 vacancies and the Colonies are demanding each month no fewer than 130 places.
  Mr. Oliver Stanley: May I call your attention Mr. Chairman, to the fact that your instructions with regard to the noise outside, which I am sure were urgent, have not been very successful?
  The Chairman: I am sorry, but I am afraid I cannot wave a magic wand and stop the hammering at once. I understand from the Serjeant at Arms that the necessary instructions have been sent out, and I hope that they may now be complied with.
  Mr. Creech Jones: There are at the moment no fewer than 1,395 vacancies in the administrative and technical services. We want 163 doctors, 150 agriculturalists, 38 veterinary officers, 160 teachers, and 170 engineers; and we are sometimes in despair as to when some of the work in the Colonies can be proceeded with at all, because of this shortage of the necessary skill and technical knowledge on the spot. There are signs of an improvement in certain of the technical grades. We are getting more geologists and a few more engineers and teachers, but in many of these important classes of work there is need for more people to volunteer.
  Mr. Beverley Baxter: I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman so early in his speech, but the figures he has mentioned are 130, or 160, or something. Surely those vacancies are not hard to fill? They cannot represent a large amount of human endeavour?
  Mr. Creech Jones: I can assure the hon. Member that they are very difficult to fill. It must be remembered that we are filling a very large number of places in these technical grades; but there is this backlog, and although we have adopted various devices, so far we have not been able to overtake the demand. We are, of course, endeavouring to meet the situation by improving the conditions of service; by improving the amenities enjoyed by the colonial servants; by shortening the period of service; by improving the pensions; by providing facilities for children in respect of their education; by improving housing, and by a whole number of other things in order to make the Service more attractive to the Colonial servants.
  We are also making a very strong appeal to the universities, the public schools and other schools. We are trying to make known the technical vacancies in the respective professional journals. By paying visits to a large number of organisations and societies, the Colonial Office are trying to arouse the interest of young men in the most attractive prospects which exist. In addition, we hope
  1396
  to arrange with certain of the services for periods of secondment from this country. Already we have come to an understanding with the Ministry of Education. We hope that a similar arrangement will be possible with the medical service. We have a scheme for probation officers, and we hope that before long a number of secondments will be arranged with other technical services. These arrangements will preserve seniority, pension and salary rights in the British services when the people have finished their duties in the territories overseas.
  We are trying to create an intermediate class of assistants to the principal technical grades. We are endeavouring to train more people locally for the kind of work which needs to be done. We are trying to establish a number of technical institutes where the necessary instruction can be given so that local people can be trained more suitably for the work. Apart from that, we are doing everything possible to introduce new facilities for colonial servants in regard to the professional aspects of their work by opening new courses and providing new opportunities for study. In the past year we have arranged a series of courses of special instruction for certain technical grades.
  For instance, we have just finished a course for labour officers under the Ministry of Labour. Another course for co-operative officers is in progress at the Co-operative College. We have arranged a course for the training of police at the Police College. There are also arrangements for refresher courses for members of the nursing service, and there are facilities at one or other of the colleges here for people engaged in social welfare work. In these ways we are endeavouring to improve the quality and experience of the various technical grades.
  At the same time, we are trying to improve the local facilities for discussion, conference and training in the territories themselves. We hope that the local universities now springing up in the various regions of the Empire will contribute a great deal. I should like to express our sincere thanks to the universities of this country for the tremendous enthusiasm with which they have entered into the training of our cadets and members of

  1397
  technical staffs who return here for further training.
  I wish to make some reference to the work which we are doing in the Colonial Office. As I have already informed the Committee, in recent years there has been a considerable change in the functions of the Colonial Office. While we have tried to give political guidance in the building up of political institutions in the territories overseas, we have also developed, on the social and economic side, a whole series of functions which are of great importance to the territories and upon which they can call for assistance at any time. I have already referred to the training of colonial servants and to the development of information services.
  I should like to refer to the higher educational arrangements which are fashioned and guided by the Inter-University Council in my office. The Inter-University Council can now see the fruits of some of its work over the past few years. The charter for the West Indies University has been received. I am glad to say that Princess Alice has kindly consented to act as the first Chancellor of the West Indies Universities. She will be visiting the university at the beginning of next year. I was present at the opening of the Ibadan University in West Africa. That is progressing well. In Malaya the preliminary steps have been taken for the university college there. We hope that that college will start its work in October of this year. Likewise, very satisfactory progress can be reported from the college in the Gold Coast set up alongside Achimota.
  Mr. Follick: Would the right hon. Gentleman give a few details about the work at Makerere College?
  Mr. Creech Jones: If I cover every one of the colleges, my speech will be of tremendous length. I could say a lot about the Makerere College and about other higher educational institutions. I merely wanted to convey to the Committee that satisfactory progress was being made in almost every region where these colleges are established.
  A further duty which the Colonial Office has undertaken is the building up of the survey service for mapping the Colonial Empire and for discovering its mineral and water resources. The Committee will have seen from the report that
  1398
  in East and Central Africa in the first half of this year no fewer than 140,000 square miles were photographed. The programme for West Africa for the photographing of 156,000 square miles is now proceeding. Very good work has been done in Borneo and Malaya, and maps are now being issued. I believe that no fewer than 64 new maps have been published covering 20,500 square miles. We hope before long to have available maps covering an area of 115,000 square miles. In addition to the topographical surveys, geological surveys are proceeding. Ground surveying parties are at work in Central and East Africa.
  Another function of the Colonial Office is concerned with the welfare of students who come to this country. I should like hon. Members to appreciate that the policy pursued is shaped by an advisory committee for the assistance of the Secretary of State. Certain hon. Members of this House sit on that committee, and we are grateful for the advice which they have proffered.
  Mr. Stanley: How often does the committee meet?
  Mr. Creech Jones: I believe that they meet once every two months. I cannot give the right hon. Gentleman the date of the last meeting. Our policy would incline away from the establishment of hostels for Colonial peoples where they are segregated from people of other races. We are most anxious that, as far as possible, in the universities the halls of residence should not be exclusively halls for Colonial students. We are also anxious that the hostels which we ourselves provide should be no more than temporary places through which the students pass before they go into private accommodation.
  The respective Colonial Governments are taking a very keen interest in this work, and they have now assigned to the Colonial Office a number of liaison officers to meet the students, to give advice about the homes to which they go or the hostels to which they are assigned, and advise in regard to their studies and also to try to open up amenities for them. Colonial Governments are now contributing to an amenities fund in order that sporting and other arrangements can be built up for the students here. In addition, East Africa and Malaya have founded centres for

  1399
  social activities for their students here, and, generally, a very close liaison is now kept as between the local government and the student and the Colonial Office. I think I can assure the Committee that we are mindful of the vital importance of seeing that constructive and healthy influences surround the students who are here, and also that every opportunity is taken to show them the interest in British homes, and, if possible, to arrange for them actually to live in British homes.
  Passing now to the further functions of the Colonial Office in planning and organising research, a Bill is before the House at present, and I need not trouble the Committee about it now. The way in which research work is organised, the medical research, the educational and sociological research, the inquiries into the agricultural use of colonial products are all well-known to the Committee. This is an important function, like many others which the Colonial Office performs. Finally, there is its work on the economic side, on which I shall have something to say in a moment. It does already help the economic development of our territories, and tries to assist in the supply of capital goods and consumer goods which those territories require. It helps to encourage new enterprises, and helps with the marketing arrangements of the products of the territories, it assists in trade negotiations and also in supervision regarding the working of exchanges, taxation and so on.
  During the past year, in order that a close relationship can exist between the Colonies and ourselves, so that the most up to date information shall be available both for the use of the Colonial Office and the territories themselves, we have appointed four liaison officers to travel between London and the regions for the purposes of trying to keep each side acquainted with all possibilities and new developments. In this connection, I should also like to pay a tribute to the other Departments of Whitehall which have co-operated with us so excellently in the work which we are trying to do in the matter of supplies for our territories.
  Coming now to economic policy in the Colonies themselves, I feel that I cannot do better than refer hon. Members, not only to the report which is before them, in which we have tried to set out as com-
  1400
  pletely as possible the breadth of our economic interests, the new developments that are going forward and others that are projected, but also to the summary article which appears in "The Times" this morning on the subject of colonial development. It gives an admirable account of what is being done, and I think serves an extremely useful purpose so far as the general public are concerned.
  The Colonies, as we all know, have made a very considerable contribution in regard to our dollar savings and dollar earnings in the past few years, and that contribution, I am afraid, is not appreciated to the full, but it is and has been of the very greatest importance to our country in trying to secure the health of the sterling area. As we look at the figures set out in pages 48 to 60 of the report, we appreciate how considerable has been the expansion in the production of raw materials, metals and foodstuffs, how exports have risen in most of the important commodities, and how all the revenues of the respective Governments have also increased to enable them to cope with their increasing responsibilities.
  We have at the moment reached a somewhat difficult period. The demand for and the price levels of some of the principal commodities have slumped, and I can assure the Committee that, in respect of each of these commodities, everything possible will be done on the Government side to help to re-adjust the situation arising from this recession. Temporarily, we have been obliged to lower the dollar expenditure in the territories, or rather, I should say, we are negotiating with the local governments to secure that effect, but we are mindful that the development work and the expansion of essential products should not be prejudiced by this fact, nor, if possible, should the standard of living be lowered in any way. We submitted the whole of this problem the other week to an influential conference of supply officers of all the territories, and their co-operation on behalf of all their governments was readily acceded in trying to meet the difficulties of the present financial position.
  What, then, are we trying to do to meet the fundamental services on which our economic expansion depends? First of all, there is transport and communications, and hon. Members will be interested

  1401
  to know of the new work which is going forward at Dar-es-Salaam. I mention the ports first—the deep sea quays in Freetown, the building of a port at Mikindani, the new contract for the extension of the port of Takoradi. Similarly with the railways, we are anxious that we should open out railway communications between Northern Rhodesia, Nyasaland, Tanganyika and Kenya, and already we have discussed with Messrs. Gibbs and Company, and they with their American subsidiary, how the technical survey—we have already done the economic survey—can be quickly carried out. That means that we have two or three big projects in mind for opening out central Africa and for relieving the pressure in Northern Rhodesia and Lower Nyasaland. Likewise, in regard to air transport, new airfields are being built or are planned to be made at Hong Kong, at Livingstone in Northern Rhodesia and in Singapore.
  The Committee is also aware of the new developments in regard to hydroelectric power and electricity generally. The scheme for Uganda has already been announced. At Owen Falls, we hope to harness the water from Lake Victoria and to produce power to a capacity of 121,500 kilowatts. That means that this scheme, with which we are pushing on as fast as possible, is not likely to come into operation until 1952. Similarly, plans are being made and investigations are going forward in regard to power from the River Volta on the Gold Coast, from the falls in British Guiana for development there, in Borneo for aluminium and industrial mining development, and also in Rhodesia.
  There has also been a marked increase in the development of public works and utilities in the territories during the last year. Most of the territories have now sent forward their 10-year plans and the schemes have been vetted. I should like to express the thanks of the Government to the Colonial Economic and Development Council for the work they have done in studying the schemes submitted, in making recommendations for the guidance of the territories, and, generally, in preserving a balance as between the social and the economic projects under the 10-year programme.
  The supply position has become very much easier during the past year. It is quite true that there are a number of things still in short supply, such as sheet
  1402
  steel, tubing, piping, and a certain type of agricultural machinery. Nevertheless, the position is very much better than it was, and so far as indications go we think it will continue to improve, and that this backlog of requirements in the territories will be quickly overcome. Apart from supplies, we have been handicapped, of course, for the reason I have already mentioned—the absence of sufficient skill and of technical people for the work which must be done.
  In speaking of the facilities with which the Colonial Development and Welfare Act, 1945, provided us, perhaps I ought to say that with this acceleration in regard to public works, utilities, and services in the territories, it may be necessary, sooner than we had anticipated, to revise the terms of the Act itself. It may be that the ceiling which we have only recently asked the House to adjust may have to be further adjusted because, in the light of changing circumstances, new demands are emerging, and, unfortunately, most of the money provided by Parliament under the Act is likely to be allocated sooner than most of us foresaw a little while back.
  Mr. Stanley: Is the right hon. Gentleman referring to a Bill which is not yet even through another place; and, if that is so, would it not be easier to amend it during its passage rather than pass it, and then in a few months time pass another Bill?
  Mr. Creech Jones: I understand that the Bill went through yesterday.
  Mr. Stanley: The right hon. Gentleman must have known yesterday.
  Mr. Creech Jones: I said the indications are that that ceiling may prove to be insufficient, but it all depends, of course, on the facility with which the Colonies are able to go ahead with the various projects they now have in hand. Anyway, in the course of a year or so, the Bill may be somewhat restrictive in regard to our development proposals.
  Mr. A. Edward Davies: Can my right hon. Friend say whether it is proposed to adjust the date of the 10-year development plan which, under the 1945 Act, should be completed by March, 1956, or does he expect that the increased spending will swallow up the money before then?
  Mr. Creech Jones: It is difficult to give an exact answer, but the indications are that we shall have allocated all the money which was provided by Parliament under the 1945 Act within a comparatively limited time ahead. That will probably mean that urgent projects which the Colonies want may not be possible because there are no funds available, and that may create a situation in which the Government will need to consider whether a new Bill should be asked for.
  I come now to the other essential in regard to economic development—the provision of technicians and of suitable institutions for technical and trade training. We have come to the end of the period of the training of ex-Service men, and we are adapting the various training institutions in the different Colonies for the purpose of coping with the late adolescent and young man from the village who can profit from such trade training. There is now going on in all our Colonies a systematic working out of plans for technical education. The departments have, of course, always trained people in the Colonies for the jobs of the Department, but that, obviously, is inadequate for the needs of the territories at the present time.
  Accordingly, a great expansion in technical and trade instruction is going on at Yaba, if I may take the instance of Nigeria. Yaba College has been reformed into a technical institute, with boarding accommodation for 250 boys, and there will be facilities for studying for 1,000 or 1,500 other students. Alongside the technical institution at Yaba there will be a trade school. In addition, there will be trade training facilities at Enugu and Kaduna. Over and above that, there will be the regional colleges foreshadowed in the report of the Committee on Higher Education which the right hon. Member for West Bristol (Mr. Stanley) appointed when he was Secretary of State for the Colonies. Those plans are steadily unfolding in every one of the territories. On the Gold Coast, in Fiji and in Malaya there is also a big expansion of technical instruction.
  I now wish to refer to the encouragement, both of a public and private kind, being given in the territories. There is the extension of industry. Mining
  1404
  development has not been nearly sufficient, but, nevertheless, there have been, as the report shows, some very remarkable developments in regard to secondary industries and mining development during the last year or so. But it is important that more enterprise should be encouraged in our territories. While it is true that there has been a great deal of public enterprise in respect of public works and utilities, and so on, there is, nevertheless, very considerable room for private enterprise as well. Therefore, we hope that capital from both the United Kingdom and from foreign States may be available in order that the development of some of these backward regions may go forward.
  A few weeks ago we had the report of the Colonial Development Corporation. That indicates that this Corporation is prepared to enter into arrangements with private undertakings in regard to important works. There are many important jobs in our territories which private enterprise is not prepared to undertake because of the risks involved; but the Colonial Development Corporation, by giving a hand, can get them under way. Some suggestion has been made that perhaps Whitehall is not giving sufficient latitude to the Corporation in regard to jobs which it is anxious to get on with. I want to say that it is our desire that the maximum freedom should be enjoyed by the Corporation in order that its work should be done no less efficiently and certainly with as great freedom as is enjoyed by big private concerns. There may be restriction on the supply of raw materials, on currency, and on capital goods, which are outside our control; but these restrictions will not be more onerous for the Corporation than for private enterprise.
  It is also our intention to give all possible encouragement in the Colonies to the small producer, the peasant, and the farm worker. That is being done by building up co-operative societies and co-operative facilities for them, by trying to release them from the oppression of the moneylender, by encouraging them to apply better and improved methods of cultivation to their crops, by securing their co-operation in the conservation of the soil—there are parts of Africa where remarkable progress has been made in the last few years through the co-operation

  1405
  of technical assistants and the tribes concerned—and also by land resettlement. There are some notable instances of the resettlement of peoples in new areas in Kenya and Nigeria, which have resulted in greater health in the cultivation of the soil and in the lives of the people.
  We have given a great deal of attention to the marketing of colonial products. I should like to refer to paragraphs 301 to 312 in the report which deal with the subject. The method of bulk purchase in respect of certain primary commodities has proved of tremendous service to the people overseas. Coffee, cocoa, bananas, citrus, oilseed, sugar, hides, timber, tin, and copper are all commodities which are purchased either in whole or in part by the United Kingdom Government, at a negotiated price and that gives stability to the producer. Moreover, there has been an expansion in the number of longterm contracts which it has been possible to enter into on behalf of the producers. These include coffee, oilseeds, bananas, sugar and copra, so that producers can look well ahead and feel that they have an assured market with a prospect of reasonable prices. These arrangements are bringing back into the territories a great deal of money which previously was lost to them.
  The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol (Mr. Stanley) had some responsibility for the cocoa produce scheme and the building up of a considerable fund, which has been of great social value in the last year or so in the Gold Coast It will also prove to be the case in Nigeria as well. In the Gold Coast, it has not only made provision for a cushion for the maintenance of a good price level to the primary producers, but it has also provided money for the founding of the university of the Gold Coast; for compensating farmers for the cutting out of the diseased cocoa trees; and for necessary research work into the problems of the industry. It also brings into the country a very considerable capital, which conceivably might be available for other development work.
  There is, of course, the other work which we do in the Colonial Office in regard to research. I mentioned research just now, but the Committee will recall that we hope to apply antrycide to the cattle of Africa, and by this and other arrangements such as better water supplies, better feedingstuffs and so on,
  1406
  to build up a meat supply in that great continent. We think we have found the answer to the problem of sudden death in Zanzibar in regard to the clove industry.
  Mr. Stanley: The right hon. Gentleman used the phrase "the answer to the problem of sudden death in Zanzibar." Does he mean a cure, because I understood that in the latest report it was stated that eradication was the only thing to be done.
  Mr. Creech Jones: I understand that the scientists have discovered some method of treating the particular grub or pest which is responsible for the disease, but whether it will involve cutting out the trees I am not competent to answer.
  Mrs. Leah Manning: Is that the report of the scientists sent out by F.A.O.? Has there been any report from those three gentlemen?
  Mr. Creech Jones: They were two gentlemen who were sent out by the Americans—
  Mrs. Manning: After the riots?
  Mr. Creech Jones: We were talking about Zanzibar. My hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mrs. Manning) refers to the swollen shoot disease which is found in the Gold Coast. The report was published by the International Commission and that report recommended the complete cutting out of the cocoa plant. That is rather different from the clove industry in Zanzibar.
  There is much more I should like to talk about in our Colonial policy, but I must refrain. The last part of what I have to say I should like to devote to political development. We all accept the view that if political development is to be soundly conceived, there must be adequate social and economic development in order to support it. If we look back on the last few years we are able to see in political development the signs of a number of interesting experiments. Ceylon has Dominion status; Malta has acquired internal self-government; the West Indian British territories under Sir Hubert Rance are discussing the problem of federation and some substanial progress is being made; the East African authority has come into being for co-ordinating the economic activities and services of that vast region of Africa; the

  1407
  Central African Council has done excellent work on behalf of the two Rhodesias and Nyasaland; and the West African Council has also resumed its work and a number of common services, particularly in the field of communications and research, are being performed for our four territories in that region. There is still a great deal of discussion going on in regard to these groupings. In some cases the House may in the next few years be called upon to form some judgement as to how much further some of them can be tied up in effective government federation or new government machinery.
  Apart from the constitutional development which has been proceeding in many of our territories in respect of the central organs of government, we have been very active in trying to create in the territories a sound basis of local government as well. It is not for me at this stage to discuss what is happening in regard to the transformation of indirect rule into effective local government organisation, nor should I at this point discuss the increasing demands in some parts of Africa for greater responsibility by Africans in the control of their executive councils.
  What I do want to say is that I do not think we can proceed fast with political development until we expand the social services and the conditions of good living, and until we build up in the territories a sound economic basis to sustain the social services which we are trying to create. That means that an enormous amount of work is being done in the field of social service, in improving housing and bettering community living, in improving educational facilities and in trying to make for better conditions—so that more and more, as responsibility grows, it can be exercised with knowledge and understanding from the point of view of social service.
  I had hoped to have time to discuss the problem of internal security in some of our territories which has caused us a great deal of anxiety during the past year. I know that the Committee is very anxious to be assured, in regard to certain of our territories under the Trusteeship Council, that their integrity is not being prejudiced by the supervision exercised by the Council. I can assure the Committee that we have tried to act in
  1408
  all these matters in the spirit in which the House has expressed itself from time to time.
  On the whole, I can give a very good and healthy record of the progress being made in almost all our territories. We are conscious that more and more have we the loyalty and good will of the peoples concerned. In my recent visit to Central Africa, the African people came forward everywhere to express their profound loyalty to the throne and to Britain, and also to make it perfectly clear that they do want to live under our flag and to co-operate with us as they become increasingly conscious of their own responsibilities and build up the ability to exercise those responsibilities.
  Our job, as I have said, is to build up good living conditions and responsibility in these territories overseas. I believe that the recent drive in economic development is calculated, not only to meet the needs of the external world, but to provide the colonial peoples with the wherewithal to build up their services and meet their own demands for development. I therefore feel that we have before us today a magnificent record of work of which we can be justly proud and in regard to which we owe an enormous debt to those who have brought about such remarkable changes and progress. I end by paying my tribute again to those officials of the Colonial Office and of the Colonial Service who have contributed so much to the progress in these territories.
  5.5 p.m.
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The House will sympathise with the right hon. Gentleman because of the vast scale of his canvas and the comparatively short time he had to paint it. I think we all would have had tolerated an even longer speech had he been able to deal more fully with the subject to which he referred at the end of his remarks, namely, the question of internal security in our Colonies, which is a matter that has disturbed Members on both sides of the Committee. I hope that when the Under-Secretary replies he will be able to give us the information which the right hon. Gentleman felt he had not the time to give.
  This may be the last major Colonial Debate we shall have before the General Election. No one can say with any accuracy, not even the hon. Gentleman,

  1409
  when the General Election will come, but it may be that before we discuss these affairs again on such a broad scale there will have been much controversy between us and many hard knocks exchanged. But the one thing we are entirely agreed upon is that we are anxious to do all we possibly can for the prosperity and welfare of the Colonial Empire.
  Indeed, so clear and unequivocal are the statements in this most excellent Blue Book that the right hon. Gentleman could subscribe to one of the main declarations of faith of our party announced some 10 days before this book appeared: We declare that we on this side intend to develop to the full the resources of the Colonial Empire, to work for a higher standard of living for its inhabitants, and to guide its peoples along the road to self-government within the framework of the British Empire and Commonwealth; that we shall give priority to the development of the material wealth of the Colonies and will do this because, without firm economic foundations, there can be no improvement in social conditions nor can there be any real political advance. We add that a country cannot be master of its own destinies until it is financially independent and possesses a sound social and economic system.
  To help the House in this discussion we have the Report which the right hon. Gentleman has introduced this afternoon. I am sorry that the title has changed. It used to be called "The Colonial Empire," but it is now called "The Colonial Territories." As the Fabian Society have changed the name of their monthly journal from "Empire" to "Venture," I suppose that this concession has been made by the Secretary of State to parry some of the broadsides which have been levelled at him by his late Fabian associates. I agree that this Blue Book, to which I should like to pay the fullest possible tribute, provides a basis on which all parties can work.
  We have deliberately left out one or two Votes which might have been thought relevant to this Colonial Debate. But, as my right hon. Friend the Member for West Bristol (Mr. Stanley) said, we are hoping to have further discussions on the more detailed problems of Africa before we adjourn. Many of us hope also that
  1410
  it will be possible to have further discussions on the groundnuts venture in East Africa. We have left out, therefore, the Ministry of Food Vote, the West African Produce Vote and the High Commission Territories Vote so these problems and the affairs of the Trusteeship Territory in Africa and the ill-informed and unbalanced report by an international body and the misuse made of some of their resolutions—will fall to be discussed later on.
  None the less we have here enough to show us within the scope of this Debate a good deal of guidance as to how we can in our Empire, in the words of His Majesty a few weeks ago when he opened the Colonial Month, make a world "nearer to our hearts' desire." I should like to congratulate the Government on this report and the Secretary of State upon the Colonial Month, which has offered so much to interest and educate our people in one of their prime responsibilities.
  I should like to refer also to a subject to which the right hon. Gentleman referred and to which the Minister of State has referred elsewhere—the need to look after our colonial fellow citizens in England, and give them the help we can when they come to our shores. It looks as though we have at the present time a colonial community of at least 30,000 people living in the United Kingdom. Many are living in deplorable conditions and we look to private individuals and to national voluntary institutions to help to make their life better and more worth while. I agree with the Secretary of State as to the particular importance of doing something worth while for the nearly 3,500 students, which is the figure in the Blue Book. There are probably more, of whom more than half are in London, under one-half of these being here on scholarships. There are 1,300 students from West Africa and 1,000 from the West Indies.
  We look to the time when the development of colonial universities will provide a better background for many of these men of undergraduate age than we can provide here in the United Kingdom, and when those who wish to do so and are qualified to profit by it come on here afterwards for post-graduate training. We of the Opposition join with the Government in wishing every success to the

  1411
  various universities mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman—the Royal University of Malta with its new constitution, the new university formed in Malaya out of the Raffles College and the King Edward VII College of Medicine, the university college at Ibadan in Nigeria, the university colleges of the Gold Coast and the West Indies, and in East Africa the college—which is not yet a university—at Makerere. We wish every success to technical education in the Colonies themselves, without which there will be no chance of economic progress in our Colonial Empire.
  Meanwhile, many of these people are living here and it is up to us to see that they are given the best possible facilities. We notice with interest that as from the beginning of next year the British Council will take the responsibility for co-ordinating welfare work for colonial students. It is no reflection on a Government Department to say that we think that an unofficial body of that kind is more suitable to do that work. Private individuals and voluntary institutions can also help by sustained hospitality.
  That is one thing which we can learn from the Colonial Exhibition. We can also learn, and many people are abjectly ignorant of it, of the vast economic wealth of the Colonial Empire if we could devote the money, men and materials to develop it. Under the sovereignty of His Majesty today, and including, of course, the United Kingdom and the British Dominions—and a great part of this wealth is in the Colonial Empire—we have in the mineral world alone, as shown by the recorded figures, 70 per cent. of the world's nickel, over 60 per cent. of the gold, one-third of the diamonds, a quarter of the aluminium, a quarter of the tin and a quarter of the copper.
  In raw materials we have nearly all the jute in the world, nearly two-thirds of all the rubber, and already three-fifths of all the groundnuts in the world, most of which come from private sources, one-third of the linseed and one-third of the wood pulp. That is a pretty big heritage. In the realm of food we have four-fifths of the tea, half the rice and nearly half the cocoa, one-third of the sugar and a quarter of most of the cereals. If some part of the energy which has quite rightly
  1412
  been put into building up European unity could be put into building up Empire unity and developing that heritage for the benefit of all who live within it, there is no limit to the possibilities that lie before us.
  If it is true that we have a lot to learn by exhibitions of this kind, it is also true that our colonial fellow citizens also have a lot to learn. Some hon. Members have no doubt read a remarkable article by Mrs. Huxley in "Time and Tide" recently, when she referred to the need for the colonial peoples to be educated in certain realities. These were that independence without self-defence and self-support is a myth, that no social improvement or political advance worth having can take place without substantial increases, through their own exertions, in their national income. She added that these unpalatable truths had to be told.
  I hope that it will not strike too discordant a note in the general harmony prevailing today to say that some of the people who have disguised those harsh facts are not always the best people to teach the colonial people these truths today. Mrs. Huxley wrote in the article to which I have referred:
  "All over the Colonies people are growing restive because the blessings they have been led to expect with little or no effort to themselves do no materialise."
  She said that it was no use blaming them, that they have been:
  "taught to look for a Land of Cockayne"—
  which hon. Members interested in mediaeval legend will remember is the imaginary land where one gets everything without doing anything for it—
  "and they wake up and find themselves in the Twentieth Century."
  It is not entirely their fault.
  There are words in this report which even the Minister of Health could profit by if he would read and take them seriously. I hope, incidentally, that the alarming reports in some colonial papers that he is about to exchange portfolios with the right hon. Gentleman are wholly inaccurate. In page 1 of the General Survey it is stated:
  "A dependency is no different from any other country in this that in the long run its living standards must be those it can pay for."

  1413
  I commend those words to us all for we are all guilty from time to time of forgetting their obvious implication. I think that a Government which allows those words to appear in a report have learned and their chief spokesmen have learned from the lessons of the last few years. I think they agree, too, that we are applying the principles of justice to a wide variety of races, the impartial and uncorrupt justice for which this country is rightly famed. I join wholeheartedly with the Chief Justice of the Seychelles in denying the right of any spokesman of the Executive ever to question the decision of a court of law.
  Those are not the only lessons which emerge from a careful reading of this Blue Book. It is quite impossible, as the right hon. Gentleman himself said, to deal with all the various aspects of Colonial policy with which we should like to deal. One is obliged to pick out things which particularly interest one or which appear to represent a trend running through the whole report. The first thing one realises when reading the report is the acceptance by the Government to day of the fact that colonial development is not necessarily colonial exploitation and that all the things they want to see the Colonies enjoy cannot be brought about without colonial development.
  There is much more danger now of exploitation than ever before because the Government are now a great employer and are not standing as they should do and as they usually did previously, impartially holding the scales and seeing that no injustice is done to the native peoples. The Government now desire to get many commodities out of the Colonies which the Government buy themselves. The hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Crawley), who not long ago was Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Secretary of State himself, stated a few weeks ago—it was printed in one of the African papers, "West Africa," on 6th June, that he feared that hard bargaining by purchasing Ministers might defeat some of the good work of the Colonial Office. He added:
  "The Minister of Food is trying to buy food all over the world as cheaply as he can."
  That would be a very commendable object if the Minister was not applying those principles to our own primary producers in the Empire. The fact that
  1414
  the Government are now the largest employer—for example, in Tanganyika—does mean that we have got to be scrupulously careful to see that suggestions of exploitation have no justification.
  Mr. Edward Davies: Is it not a fact that the Colonies are getting much better prices under this arrangement, and that there has been no question of giving the ridiculous figures they used to have?
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd: It is a little early to say because we have not got the groundnuts yet. When we have the groundnuts we shall be able to judge whether the people who grow them are getting a proper return. But to convince the hon. Gentleman still further of the real danger—and this is not a party point—I have only to draw his attention to a statement made a few weeks ago by the chairman of a large company operating in the Far East, who said publicly that Ceylon was getting a better price for her tea than Malaya was getting for her produce because Ceylon was an equal of the purchasing Government—not a very pleasant description of the United Kingdom Government—was the equal of the purchasing Government, whereas the Malaya Government were subordinate. This does give another illustration of the dangers that lie ahead when the Government enter into trade.
  Another thing that, I think, emerges from a close study of this Blue Book is that the real development of the Colonial Empire will be brought about only by a proper partnership between the native peoples and European settlers. I was delighted that the right hon. Gentleman gave a warm welcome to private enterprise in the Colonial Empire, and I hope that he will use his influence with his colleagues to see that industries built up through many preliminary difficulties are allowed to flourish in the hands of the people who first started them, and who took the risks, and that they do not find themselves treated as some of their United Kingdom brethren have been—to hasty and ill-considered schemes of nationalisation.
  I am very glad indeed that the right hon. Gentleman has vigorously answered the Trusteeship Council which tried to suggest that we have been exploiting the people of Tanganyika. Quite frankly, what the Chinese and the Costa Rican members of it know of the problems of Colonial

  1415
  Government have not yet been disclosed. But I think we must congratulate the Government on a real change of heart, for in their reply to the United Nations Trusteeship Council they used these remarkable words, which it is inconceivable to think the right hon. Gentleman would have used five years or so ago. These were the words:
  "The productive capacity of the African peasant is at present far greater when in paid employment than when left to cultivate for himself as a peasant farmer."
  We are glad also to know that the same things apply to the Trusteeship Territories. The right hon. Gentleman said of the settlers, that the Europeans had rendered great services to the development of our own Colonial Empire, and that what they were entitled to expect
  "is a sense of security, a sense of stability, and a sense of solid achievement."
  While on that subject of the joint partnership, I should like to say how much I welcome the stress laid in this report on the small cultivator and the need to build up the prosperity of the little man. Although, undoubtedly, large scale mechanised farming will have its place in Africa and elsewhere, the peasant proprietor will still remain an essential link in the chain. What we have to do is to see that he has better and more up to date tools, better seed, and better advice all round. The report of the Oil Seeds Mission which came out in the year we are now discussing bears out what can be done by a better use of fertilisers.
  The third lesson that, I think, is running through this report is that political development must not race ahead of social and economic development. In this field of social development and technical development, the essential prerequisites to any real economic development, we know there are tragic shortages in personnel. I was impressed by what the Secretary of State said as to the very large number of people who have been recruited, and we recognise that the recruitment before the war was not continued during the war, and that many other difficulties have added to their task. The vacancies amongst professional and technical people to the tune of some 1,200 at the moment are really too many. The engineering establishment in Malaya of only 130 is 30 short. There are 150
  1416
  doctors short of an establishment of 400, and 21 surveyors out of an establishment of 58.
  The right hon. Gentleman gave some reasons why there is this shortage. There is another reason, and that is the sense of insecurity as to the intentions of the United Kingdom in regard to long-term loyalties between her and her Colonial Empire, and we welcome wholeheartedly any robust statement such as that made today by the right hon. Gentleman and the statements in still more vigorous fashion of our spokesmen at the General Assembly of the United Nations. While on the question of staff, I think we all regret that the excellent system of sending our people from the Colonial Office here to see the territories in which they have such great responsibilities should be discontinued, and we very much hope, not least because it will alter that unhappy fact, that we shall see all necessary vacancies soon filled.
  There is one point in regard to the social services of those technical and professional people who are working in the Empire. No one can see the spectacular decline in maternal and infantile mortality in Singapore and Hong Kong—the really spectacular decline—and the records of the people who have virtually eliminated malaria in Cyprus and British Guiana without the keenest satisfaction. These are worthwhile contributions and those responsible deserve all our congratulations.
  The right hon. Gentleman said that the sterling area depends very largely on the Colonial Empire. Certainly, that is true. The needs of the sterling area today are the opportunities of our Colonies, and only through helping in that way are they likely to help themselves to the fuller life that they need. Some of them complain that they do not get the dollars that they earn applied to their own particular purposes, but I am sure they recognise that the dollar rate of the cost of imports that they might have had from the United States is based on the trade and resources of the whole of the sterling area, and that in most cases they would not be able to have such a favourable rate if they stood entirely on their own. But we must, I think, consider the psychological aspect of this, and see what we can do to prevent the Colonies from thinking that, however fast they earn

  1417
  dollars, they get no appreciable personal or local gain.
  We have had the report of the Colonial Development Corporation and I should like to touch upon that. Some of my hon. Friends will deal with that in more detail than I shall. I hope very much that in further reports we shall have more precise details of the cost of various specific schemes. We welcome the improvements in the exports to the Colonies and a definite steel allocation. We wish we could do more to speed up locomotives where they are desperately needed in Africa and elsewhere, and home production of tractors and heavy earth moving equipment which they will need for a very long time ahead. We welcome the increase in consumer goods to which the right hon. Gentleman referred. I am afraid that some part of that increase is due to the sales resistance our people are finding in other parts of the world. Nevertheless, it is a gain to our Colonial Empire.
  There is a further point leading from the question of economic progress with which I should like to trouble the Committee. One part of the Blue Book deals with Malayan rubber and another with West Indies sugar. These are both vital commodities if we are to close the dollar gap in the one case, and to build up a prosperous Empire in that and in the other. The Blue Book tells us that the production of rubber in Malaya reached the record total last year of 698,000 tons. The right hon. Gentleman talked of the dollar earning capacity of the Colonies. I am sure most people realise—he, most of all—that we have not at the moment got many big dollar earners. There is a number of vital minerals and other things of which there is great need in the United States and Canada, and I hope that the development of these will be pushed on with, but, at the moment the chief dollar earners anyhow are rubber, tin and cocoa.
  How long will the present record in rubber production continue? There are one or two sinister signs. The herculean task that has been achieved of great production under appalling difficulties, with the gangster warfare continuing around the plantations, must draw from all sides of this Committee our fullest admiration and praise for our fellow citizens, whether British. Malay, Chinese or Indian, who
  1418
  are out there carrying the brunt of that today. The profits for the year 1947–48 of the rubber companies only give a very small margin of profit, and that only to the best men. As hon. Members know, the bulk of the cost of rubber production goes in labour—some 70 per cent. Any fall in the price for rubber must have considerable consequences on the whole of our economy and on the people who are producing the rubber themselves.
  Why has there been this fall? Indonesia is now sending large quantities of rubber to the United States and Canada, so that between January and May of this year their share of the total exports from Indonesia and Malaya has jumped from 14.9 per cent. to 32 per cent. That will have a very considerable effect upon our dollar earnings this time next year. There are also, as many hon. Members have pointed out, widespread leakages through neutral countries to dollar sources. And above all, there is the synthetic rubber requirement of the United States, demanding a certain proportion of synthetic rubber. Synthetic rubber costs are higher than natural rubber. It does of course have an adverse effect upon our own Malayan business.
  In the first six months of last year we got 90 million dollars in the sterling area from the sale of Malayan rubber alone. It will not be the same this year. I hope that the Under-Secretary will be able to give us some reassurance as to the prospects of that industry, and that steps will be taken to help people who deserve well of us for their contribution to the sterling needs, and still more for their immense courage under most formidable difficulties.
  Mr. Harold Davies: This is of paramount importance, because here is one of the possibilities of helping to close the dollar gap, and I do not think it is quite right to put the blame on the Colonial Office for the low price of this rubber. We have had to take into account the pressure from America. While the price of rubber is up only 25 per cent., world prices generally are up 300 per cent.
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I was at pains to attach no blame whatever to the Colonial Office. They are affected by world circumstances, and all those three circumstances could happen, whoever was in

  1419
  charge of the Government of the country. But they are factors which should be brought forward in this House, because if they are not tackled they spell more serious trouble for us in the future.
  As for West Indian sugar, to which reference has already been made, we wish for a closer union, and one day for federation in the West Indies. But there are certain essential prerequisites to be fulfilled first, and there seems to be no immediate sign of their having been fulfilled. We wish every success to the people coming here, whether they are expert traders or more politically-minded people, from the West Indies to urge the case of the West Indies sugar trade. We remember very well that before the war one-half of our imports of sugar came from British Empire sources. Since then, largely through the work of the World Food Board and its successor, we have been having a much higher proportion from foreign countries, and last year the Empire sent us only 20 per cent., while Cuba sent us 60 per cent. The most recently published figures for this year, which are not in the Blue Book, show that the figure has jumped from 20 per cent. to 38 per cent. from the British Colonial Empire.
  The United States has a ban, under their Sugar Act, on sugar imports into the United States unless they come from Porto Rico, Hawaii or the Philippines. I hope that we shall find some good reason why we should not have a quota ourselves unless, as I hope, the Government eventually decide to have this system ourselves. This sugar is bought on long-term contracts, and the view of our party is that we dislike State trading, not on any ideological ground but because almost invariably it works out to be more expensive.
  However, we do support long-term contracts and guaranteed markets, and remunerative prices to be paid, as much to the West Indian sugar producer as to our own home agriculturist here. After all, it was a Minister of the party to which I belong that first introduced guaranteed prices to the home agriculturist, and we have always taken the line that the home agriculturists and the Dominion and Colonial farmer must be given equally good consideration.
  The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Rees-Williams): Would the hon. Gentleman develop his argument and give us some indication of how he proposes this should be done?
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I wish the hon. Gentleman would not be quite so impatient. I was not proposing at this hour to go into details of the exact mechanism that would have to be carried out. It is the responsibility of the Government to put forward proposals. We have it quite clearly in our own minds how it could be done so that there would be no inconsistency whatever between the State guaranteed prices and the handling of produce by private traders, just as in the case of home agriculture. No doubt there will be many other opportunities in a Debate properly linked with that subject when I could develop the whole theme. We reject altogether the view that long-term contracts, or even bulk contracts, demand State trading. We do not regard that as an essential corollary at all.
  I have left a great deal unsaid, but I am conscious of your plea, Mr. Bowles, that Members should cut their speeches short, although there is a vast field to cover. We believe that the British Colonial Office is doing remarkably well under extremely difficult circumstances. I was reading, as no doubt most hon. Members have, that book on African life called "The Sorcerer's Apprentice," and in particular the chapter which describes the discovery on Lake Victoria of the jaw of an Early Man whom the discoverer named "Proconsul," and who may be 20 million years old. The concluding thought of the author of that book is something which we should bear in mind:
  "Twenty million years from Proconsul to the Stone Age, 100,000 years from the Stone Age to modern times, and 50 years of British rule in East Africa. Yet in that half century the lessons of all recorded history are supposed to be well on the way towards delivery and assimilation."
  I do not think we are doing at all badly, and to all in the Colonial Service, whether in Whitehall or overseas, we of the Conservative Party wish the success they deserve.
  5.37 p.m.
  Mr. Anthony Greenwood: I know that the hon. Member for Mid-Bedford (Mr. Lennox-Boyd) will acquit me of discourtesy in

  1421
  not following his interesting but at times provocative remarks; but my time is very limited, and I want to address myself to a rather narrow aspect of the problem of the Colonial Empire.
  I think it is one of the weaknesses of our Colonial Debates that all of us tend to be interested in different aspects of the problem, with the result that there is no general principle running through our discussions. The same weakness, I think, is revealed in reports of the kind we are discussing this afternoon on the Colonial territories. That report covers a great deal of ground; it says a lot; but parts of it do not really mean a great deal. It seems to me that there is no real underlying principle behind the construction of this report. It is almost as though a kind of Civil Service magpie had looked around for a collection of bits and pieces which appealed to him personally, and had gathered them together without any underlying principle of selection, or any apparent pattern. The weakness in the report is not the fault of those members of my right hon. Friend's staff who composed it; the fault really lies in the fact that they have not got the factual material upon which to work.
  That weakness is particularly obvious in the treatment of tuberculosis in this report. Indeed, the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Hanley (Dr. Stross) on tuberculosis in Africa, in an Adjournment Debate on 1st July, taught us a great deal more about tuberculosis than we learn from this report. In the report there are only four references to tuberculosis. In paragraph 466 we find a reference to the isolation hospital for tuberculosis in Trinidad being opened in August, 1948; in paragraph 467 we are told that 100 beds are now available in Aden; in paragraph 469 there is reference to the "alarming spread of tuberculosis in recent years in Singapore"; and paragraph 474 speaks of the visit of tuberculosis consultants to West Africa.
  Of the Colonial Development and Welfare Report, which was published only 48 hours ago, I shall speak in a moment. Although there are so few references to it in the report, it is indisputable that tuberculosis is growing alarmingly in the Colonial Empire today, especially in Africa. Conditions for its growth are particularly favourable at this stage in Africa. We have increasing
  1422
  urbanisation which is intensifying every year, the gathering together of native peoples in schools, mines and offices, the intermingling of infected persons with natives who are not immune to the disease, and also the continuing problem of malnutrition, to which my right hon. Friend so rightly referred, and towards a solution of which the Colonial Office are now doing so much. All these factors have contributed to the spread of tuberculosis during the last few years.
  I think it is a great pity that the report does not provide more statistical evidence of the incidence of tuberculosis in the Colonial Empire. Only two sources are available to us. There are the annual reports of medical officers in the Colonies—which sometimes show little grasp of the problems involved, and only the scantiest knowledge of the proper use of statistics—and there are our personal contacts with medical officers returning from the Colonial Empire on furlough to this country. But from both these sources it is clear that there is little ground for doubt about the high incidence of tuberculosis and the high mortality rate that that disease brings in its train.
  In Lagos, for instance, the tuberculosis mortality rate is 128 per 100,000 as against about 40 per 100,000 in this country. Of the deaths in Government hospitals in Nigeria in the years 1944–46, the last period for which I have been able to find statistics, 7.5 per cent. were attributable to tuberculosis as against less than 5 per cent. in this country. The Director of Medical Services in Kenya, in his last annual report, says:
  "The position in respect of tuberculosis is disturbing, and gives rise to anxiety. There would appear to be no doubt as to its increasing spread in the non-immune native population, and the virulence of its type, while the existing facilities for its treatment are inadequate."
  In other Colonies there is very much the same state of affairs. In Tanganyika, the tuberculosis mortality rate has doubled in the past six years.
  Mr. Beverley Baxter: What is the rate?
  Mr. Greenwood: I have not got the figure with me, but I can let the hon. Gentleman have it in the course of the Debate if he wishes.
  In face of these disturbing figures it is a little depressing to turn to the Colonial

  1423
  Development and Welfare Return and find that out of more than 300 schemes only two have a direct bearing on tuberculosis, although a further eight will do so through the provision of increased hospital accommodation. Out of all the research schemes covered by that report, none has any reference to tuberculosis; indeed, medical research schemes rank far below research schemes for agriculture and fisheries in the amount of money which is to be spent.
  Mr. Baxter: We are listening to the hon. Gentleman with sympathy, but when he quoted the statistics for Lagos as being 128 deaths per 100,000 as against 40 in this country, does he consider that that is a high figure, having regard to its development and civilisation? We do not feel that it is a high figure.
  Mr. Thomas Reid: Is my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Radcliffe (Mr. Anthony Greenwood) aware that development schemes are a means of attacking tuberculosis, the chief cause of which is malnutrition?
  Mr. Greenwood: That is true, and I also agree with the hon. Member for Wood Green (Mr. Baxter). I do not say that the proportion is unduly high in the circumstances, but I do not think we can be complacent even though we appreciate the causes which give rise to this high incidence of tuberculosis. The fact that the rate there is three times as high as it is in this country should spur us to get down to the problem on a more comprehensive scale than we have been able to do in the past.
  My right hon. Friend referred to the difficulties of buildings and obtaining trained staff, which I appreciate, but we must remember that in considering this problem we do not need ambitious sanatoria or large-scale hospital buildings in our Colonial Territories. If we have large sanatoria there would be a tendency for the most seriously ill to be sent there to die; the sanatoria would get a bad name and from then on few people would be prepared to go into them. What we need more than anything else are small dispensaries, mobile units, and trained staffs. My right hon. Friend spoke of training 163 doctors, which, I admit, is a considerable advance, but we have to plan on a far larger scale than that if we are
  1424
  really to get down to the problem of colonial health The real difficulty with which we are faced is the lack of information on which to plan We do not know how many doctors, health visitors or radiographers will have to be trained because we do not know the incidence of the disease.
  I believe there are two essential steps we must take in this campaign. First, there must be a real assessment of the problem, which means that we must undertake tuberculosis surveys wherever it is practicable to do so. On a previous occasion I was glad that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary paid tribute to the importance of tuberculosis surveys. Second, we need a tuberculosis unit in the Colonial Office which will give guidance on methods of surveying the disease and on the use of statistics and, still more important, will act as a pool of information about the prevention and treatment of the disease.
  The hon. Member for Mid-Bedford (Mr. Lennox-Boyd) rightly paid a tribute to the Colonial Office, and I offer my criticisms not in any sense as applying to my right hon. Friend, because I know he takes a great interest in this question of tuberculosis and has rendered great service to the tuberculous on many occasions. I believe that my right hon. Friend has done more to improve the welfare of native races in the Colonial Empire than anyone in the history of the British Empire. I hope he will go ahead in tackling this problem, and that next year he will be able to tell us that he has taken more comprehensive steps than seem to be evident from the report which is before us today.
  5.47 p.m.
  Sir John Graham Kerr: I am sure everyone in the House must have listened with great attention to the Minister's fascinating speech. I consider the right hon. Gentleman's politics to be deplorable, but I would not be honest if I allowed that to blind me to the great work which he has performed and on which we must all congratulate him.
  In the short time available to me, I have to concentrate on just a little of the enormous subject which presents itself today, and the particular bit I have chosen is scientific research bearing on fisheries. I do not do that merely because

  1425
  research on fish has been the great work of my professional career; nor do I choose it because I have just vacated the office of Chairman of the Advisory Committee on Fishery Research, of which I have been a member from its beginning, in 1919. These personal reasons are not enough to justify taking up the time of the Committee. What does justify it, however, is the fact that we are confronted with a period in which the population of the world is rapidly overtaking the possible supply of food. The waters of the earth constitute an immense reservoir of protein food materials, the investigation of which is simply in its very infancy. The right hon. Gentleman has made a great beginning in this work of investigation and development of fishery. He has dotted all over the Colonial Empire centres of fishery administration and research, and he is staffing them with enthusiastic young men furnished with a good foundation of biological training. They will do great work.
  Already, some of those stations have done great work. I will cite the first of them, which is the pioneer fishery department in Malaya. First of all, it has developed greatly the methods of fish culture. We are all aware of the great advances that have been made in the modern science of agriculture, but what we may call the science of aquiculture, has just begun. The fishery scientists bring down carp fry from China in sealed vessels so that they arrive in Malaya with practically no deaths at all. There the scientists rear the fish in their fishponds and produce a splendid return, two or three tons, perhaps, of good food material per acre. Of course, these fishponds are not necessarily confined to fresh water. It has been shown in Norway and in Loch Sween in Scotland how we can produce a great amount of fish in a properly fertilised salt water pond.
  The particularly interesting thing about the Malayan fish pond is that the scientists have hit upon the use of brackish water. They introduced a little fish from Africa called Tilapia that does not mind particularly what is the salinity of the water in which it lives. They made fishponds in the mangrove swamps. Mangrove swamps, as we all know, occupy a great extent of the coast of our Colonial Terri-
  1426
  tories. If anybody were asked the most absolutely useless type of environment, I think he would answer "a mangrove swamp," yet in Malaya the fishery department has made ponds in the brackish water of the mangrove swamps. They have encouraged the natives to build their houses on stilts over the ponds so that the domestic refuse falling down into the water provides abundant nourishment for the fish. They have produced great results. So much for fish culture.
  Of course, the product of fisheries is not always consumed as soon as it is caught, nor is it always consumed in the locality where it is caught. In fact, there is a great trade of carrying fish produced in one region to be consumed in another and sometimes distant part. That trade involves the necessity of fish being preserved in such a way as to remain eatable. I need not go into the various methods of preservation, but I will mention one, that of simply drying the fish. Dried fish already forms a large trade such as that between the North of Europe and the tropical regions of the world. Mere ordinary drying does not at all exhaust the possibilities of this particular method of preservation. What the real possibilities are was forced into my mind half a century ago when a bit of skin was found hanging in a cave, a dry cave, on the Eastern slopes of the Andes. That bit of skin belonged to no living animal but to an extinct creature. For how many decades, centuries or thousands of years that skin had hung in that cave no man could tell, but there it was, perfectly preserved; and why? For the simple reason that all the processes that destroy food and make it useless are due to the action of living microbes. The body of a microbe, like that of a Member of Parliament, is composed to the extent of more than half of water, and it cannot exist except in the presence of moisture.
  I would commend to the Minister of Food the fact that proper drying is the great method of preserving food. Drying is what nowadays, with our fondness for long words, we call "dehydration." Methods of dehydration have been worked out in the Torry laboratory at Aberdeen, and some of its product has been exported to tropical Africa where it met with great acceptance. There we have a method which will be used in the future for the pre-

  1427
  servation of all kinds of food material. We must remember that perfect dehydration means that the protein material is preserved. It means also that the food is greatly reduced in bulk and weight, which again is of the greatest importance in transport.
  I have a minute or two left, and that is certainly not enough to say all I would like to say about marine food material. There are those creatures which constitute the plankton, upon which subsist mackerel, herring, tunny and the large whalebone whale. These all live entirely on plankton. When we consume a bit of herring or mackerel, or a whalesteak, we really eat plankton indirectly. We have employed fish or whales to collect it for us. Why cannot we human beings take a little more bother to develop our methods of tracking down the plankton in the oceans, collecting it, and preserving it in a form suitable for human food. I have said enough to emphasise the point that in the oceans of the world we have an immense storehouse of protein food material waiting for us.
  6.0 p.m.
  Mr. Peart: I do not want to answer the view put forward by the hon. Member for the Scottish Universities (Sir J. Graham Kerr), but I wish to deal a little with the speech of the hon. Member for Mid-Bedford (Mr. Lennox-Boyd). He welcomed the Debate and approved the Government policy for the past 12 months, but he had to say his little party piece. We had all the old conceptions of Tory imperialism brought up again. I hope that our colonial friends will be somewhat amused at the hon. Member for Mid-Bedford lecturing them on the evolution of political democracy in view of his nostalgia for the old empire of Spain.
  With regard to guaranteed prices for colonial primary producers and domestic producers here, I would remind him that in the past the Tory Party never gave them security. It has been a Labour Government which, particularly in the sphere of home agricultural policy, has for the first time provided a system of assured markets and guaranteed prices. It was a Tory Government which repealed the Corn Production Act in 1921. It was the hon. Member for Mid-Bedford who started to make a political speech. I
  1428
  hoped that he would praise Government policy because of its valuable contribution to colonial development. I think we agree—
  Mr. Baxter: So many hon. Gentlemen opposite do not know even their recent history, much less what is going on at present. Hon. Members are constantly referring to a Tory Government, but in 1921 Mr. Lloyd George was head of the Coalition Government.
  Mr. Peart: That Government was predominantly Tory. I have only 13 minutes in which to develop my points.
  Mr. Kirkwood: My hon. Friend is doing right when he is hammering the Tories.
  Mr. Peart: We all agree that we have to speed up colonial development. The Economic Debate on Monday emphasised that point of view. It is rather unfortunate that a balance of payments problem and a serious dollar crisis should be necessary to make the British people think of their responsibilities to the colonial peoples. If our serious economic situation makes the British House of Commons and the British people realise their responsibilities to the colonial peoples and the importance of speeding up colonial development in every field, the crisis may well have served a useful purpose.
  I want to deal with a specific part of colonial development—soil erosion. I raised this matter on the Second Reading of the Overseas Resources Bill some time ago. That problem is mentioned in the blue book time and time again. I want to know more specifically what development plans we have for research in that direction. I believe soil erosion to be perhaps the most important and most difficult problem facing the colonial peoples. It is not just a colonial problem; it is a world problem. On a previous occasion I quoted some figures given by the head of the United States Soil Conservation Service, who estimated that the percentage of productive land damaged or ruined for further practical cultivation by soil erosion was 50 to 60 per cent. in North America 28 to 35 per cent. in South America, and 35 to 60 per cent. in Africa. That is an alarming position, for these figures apply to the colonial territories, where we have some responsibility.

  1429
  The blue book mentions that research is going on in this direction. We are very glad to know that in November last year this country participated in an inter-African soil conservation conference held at Goma in the Belgian Congo. It was also attended by representatives from Belgium, France and Portugal. The conference recommended the setting up of inter-African soil conservation committees which would go into the whole question of soil utilisation, soil classification and soil analysis. I want to know from the Parliamentary Secretary what progress has been made. Have those committees begun to function? Have we, through our responsibilities in Africa, participated in further regional schemes?
  I want to ask the Parliamentary Secretary further questions about finance in regard to soil conservation in the Colonies. In Appendix III B of the admirable blue book, under heading (f), "Soil Conservation," we have a total of £3 million allocated for a scheme for the whole of the Dependencies covering 10 years. The figure for Kenya is £2,250,000 and for Tanganyika £200,000. I want to know why there is no comparable figure for Uganda and other territories. Why is there a concentration only on these areas? Surely soil erosion and soil conservation is a matter which does affect all the areas which are included in the 10-year development plan. More than that, would it be possible to break down the figure of £3 million into the amount for research and the amount for actual work which will be completed?
  I agree with my right hon. Friend that one of the problems facing the Colonies is the provision of good technical men able to do the necessary research and surveys in the sphere of geology, soil conservation work and all the other specialist services which we require in the field of agriculture. While the figures which my right hon. Friend gave are excellent in themselves, I hope that his Department will continue to encourage men and women to go out to the Colonies to serve in technical jobs. Our Colonies today do not need lawyers and teachers; they need surveyors, agricultural specialists and technicians. The main problem in the Colonies is still how to increase productivity, how to end the poverty which is still there and how sensibly to exploit those rich resources which were men-
  1430
  tioned in great detail by the hon. Member for Mid-Bedford. If the Colonial Department can encourage good men and women from our universities to take up positions in the Colonies we shall not only be helping ourselves but helping the colonial peoples to develop their rich wealth.
  I trust that the colonial development sketched so admirably in the general survey will proceed quickly. There is no time for delay. If we delay this development, I say in all seriousness that we shall be sowing the dragon seeds of a war which is now sweeping like prairie fire over the Far East and Asia. We have to solve the fundamental problem of poverty. It is still there in the Colonies. My right hon. Friend the Colonial Secretary has already made a good start. The old conception of exploiting our Colonial wealth, bringing in cheap food which ruined British agriculture and at the same time ruined the primary producer in the Colonies, has ended.
  Mr. Stanley: In order to enable us to answer, could the hon. Member give actual instances where cheap food, brought in from the Colonies, ruined home agriculture?
  Mr. Peart: I should have thought that the history of British agriculture in the 19th century was sufficient evidence—[HON. MEMBERS: "Name one."]—when the policy pursued was one of cheap food which enabled industrialists to pay cheap wages. It was the policy of a British capitalism of that period and also the recent policy of the Tory Party between the wars. This Labour Government believes in developing our own home resources and at the same time the resources of the Colonial Empire. The Colonial Dependencies can make a great contribution to the world problem of ending poverty and enabling men and women to live in peace and security.
  6.12 p.m.
  Mr. Donner: My purpose in intervening in this Debate is to invite the Under-Secretary to add something to the account of educational activities included in the Report of the Colonial Territories, 1948–49, because, admirable as it is, this blue book contains no formulation of educational or social aims and objectives; indeed, it gives a somewhat

  1431
  blurred impression of piecemeal and haphazard educational progress. Certainly it gives no assurance of a true balance having been struck as between, first, the claims of vocational, functional and technical education in relation to the flow of investment in each Colony now or in the foreseeable future, or secondly, between general business and non-academic education and, lastly, higher or university education. Unless this balance is planned, there is almost bound to be native disappointment because there will be insufficient numbers of technicians to fill the jobs created by industrial development, as well as native disappointment if, as may well happen, there are too few jobs for people with literary training.
  Reference has been made this afternoon to the danger of political advance outrunning social and educational advance. Certainly the speed of political and constitutional advance during the last 10 years has been such that we must now face up to the fundamental question as to what kind of civilisation we desire to try to build up in each area where the ultimate responsibility is still ours. On that important point the report is silent.
  I wonder whether the Colonial Secretary has thought out the principles on which this or that element of our culture, and of indigenous cultures, should be fostered and preserved, because that decision will effect the time schedules of every school and educational institution in every Colony throughout the Empire. It seems to me that provisional objectives are necessary in view of the greater tempo of change in the world in these post-war years, a tempo which is unlikely to give us time to consider the results of experiments one at a time, and to discern between the good and the bad in each. Therefore, we must now fall back upon ascertained experience and when we do that, I hope the Colonial Office will consider also Dominion experience in this field because, for example, New Zealand experience in Western Samoa can provide some valuable lessons.
  In the long run, of course, the peoples themselves will decide what structure of society they desire. Meanwhile, it would seem as if the Government were hesitatingly moving towards a provisional aim, namely, an amalgam of what is best in native traditions plus the moral values
  1432
  of the West, where these are applicable, though it would seem that to that aim might be added also a rational understanding of colonial economic relationship to the rest of the Empire and to the world.
  There is quite clearly a duty upon the Government to provide guidance and leadership wherever self-government is not yet complete, and to exhibit to the peoples of the Colonial Empire the moral and material benefits of Western civilisation. Otherwise, if in many Colonies there is vigorous and sustained Communist propaganda, the peoples themselves will be deprived of fair conditions in which to form a judgment. If, indeed, some of these peoples remain without direction, it may well seem to themselves that they have no choice, and we will then have a clamour for so-called "sovereign" independence based upon ignorance of the overwhelming benefits of the Imperial fellowship. The world in that case will see a large part of the Colonial Empire reduced to small, weak, inefficient and uneconomic units, a source of unhappiness to themselves, and a danger to the peace of the world.
  I think the Colonial Secretary will agree with me when I say that most of our serious mistakes in the past have been due to over-simplification, to over-application of the principle of uniformity, and that, similarly, most of our successes have flowed from a recognition of the opposite principle; as, for example, from recognising the Islamic character of the Emirates in Northern Nigeria; and of how utterly different they are from the gregarious and teeming life of the cities of Yorubaland in the south-west; which are again wholly different from the fragmented and democratic Ibibio peoples of the south-east, where real chieftainship is impossible, and where the structure of government cannot correspond to the life of the people unless it is conciliar.
  We have in this world a great reputation for practical adaptability and experimental open-mindedness, but in the sphere of education this is not wholly possible, because we must now look ahead to the kind of unit which is likely to exist in 10 or 20 years' time. The Colonial Secretary must plan his education not for the African or Oriental boys and girls to play their part as children now, but as men and women when they have grown up, and

  1433
  when they will have to fit into the evolving societies which they themselves will later on mould and to which they will make their own contribution.
  Whether, therefore, we are thinking in terms of such widely different territories as Cyprus or Aden or Swaziland, there seems to me to be a danger of over-planning and of over-simplification in the educational sphere, a danger of making peoples and tribes, who are centuries and continents removed from ourselves, conform to our ideas and our conventions and to the prescriptions of remote planners in Whitehall.
  I hope, therefore, that the Colonial Secretary will agree that in this sphere three factors must be taken into account: first, the local facts and the psychological subtleties. That means acquiring on the spot. Secondly, the group-mind to which all social objectives must be applied, and the normally plural society in which those objectives must be pursued. Thirdly, we must, of course, know the political set-up and the range of the economic possibilities which are open to us in each area. That also involves questions of tribal and of European law, and of polygamy and monogamy; questions of differences of religions; of democratic indirect rule or of oligarchy under the forms of democracy; questions of Christian ethics, and of pagan or Islamic ethics; and, finally, questions of agricultural life, and full or partial industrialisation. The point to which I am leading is this. We cannot educate vaguely; we must know what we are educating for.
  If the Colonial Secretary can provide clear answers in every area a great step forward will have been taken; but if it transpires today that these matters have not been thought out—that there are no definite social and educational policies for Islamic and non-Islamic areas, for settler and non-settler areas, and for plural societies of various kinds, where there are not only communities on different levels of civilisation but communities which are themselves divided by differentiation of function, then an overwhelming case has been made out for the establishment of a Royal Commission to consider future educational and social objectives in every area of the Colonial Empire.
  In the Islamic areas every educational objective must be formulated in relation
  1434
  to Moslem law and custom and to the differences of Moslem law and custom in the different areas. In the non-Islamic areas, there are degrees of backwardness, where the formulation of any social or educational objective must take account of the relationship of their relative progress in self-government to those degrees of backwardness. Again, in settler areas, it is very important that all European children should be taught not to regard themselves as a caste apart but rather as natural leaders within and as part of a single community, who are ready and willing to share that leadership—
  Mr. Harold Davies: That is dangerous talk.
  Mr. Donner: —with other races now or in due time as the case may be. These complexities reveal the need for a Royal Commission to study the requirements of education in the Colonial Empire. Meanwhile, however, the lack of clear aims precludes, first, full co-operation with missionaries. Secondly, it precludes the full use of the much-neglected potentialities of European women, including the wives of officials, by enlisting their services on a part-time, but paid basis, for social service work amongst native women, who, in their turn, will influence the transitional generation. Thirdly, the lack of clear aims obviously does not make the training of the Civil Service any easier. Fourthly, it makes the publicising to the world of British colonial, social and educational aims and objectives much more difficult, since it is by no means an easy matter to give publicity to a vague or non-existent policy.
  I should like to ask the Colonial Secretary some questions. Will he explain the Government's plans for education in the various plural societies? Has his aim during the last four years and now been one of uniformity and domination by the majority community? If not, is each minority to control the education of its own members? If the latter, is an educational safeguard for the maintenance of this control by minorities to be incorporated in all future colonial constitutions for plural societies? If so, is the authority of Governors to be reinforced in order to make that educational safeguard a reality and not a sham?
  Secondly, what is the policy of the Government for mixed Moslem and

  1435
  pagan areas? Is there a general educational policy covering pagan, animistic and non-Moslem religions? Are all these to be tolerated? Is education to be adapted to all of them, or only to some of them; and, if to some of them, to which of them, and upon what principles is the selection made? Are, moreover, Voodoo and some of the darker cults to be suppressed in the West Indies but tolerated in Africa? It is easy enough for the Colonial Secretary to enunciate general principles in the House of Commons, but practical difficulties arise when those principles are applied to the actual facts and circumstances. What are the main educational principles which are taught in the Pacific to the Polynesians, Melanesians and the Micronesians regarding attitudes to the race problem? Are those principles such as would make those peoples condemn the White Australia policy and, if so, what precisely are the anti-Australian policies which have been inculcated in the last two or three years in the Pacific region?
  These are but a few of the deeper questions which ought to be asked. Parliament should know what is being done and where we are going. I hope that the Colonial Secretary will recognise the intricacy and delicacy of these problems, and that he will move cautiously and will, therefore, appoint a Royal Commission to inquire into all this difficult problem of formulating the social and educational aims of widely different areas.
  My final point relates to mass education. Paragraph 409 of the report, fills me with deep concern. It contains a sentence which reads:
  "… two regional Literature Bureaux commenced full operation in East Africa and Central Africa respectively, to co-ordinate and promote means of supplying literature both from official and unofficial sources for these territories."
  The operative word is "promote." Is the correct interpretation of that sentence that the Colonial Secretary has instituted mass education in various territories before he supplied, or was ready to supply, the new literates with appropriate literature? If so, he has entirely overlooked the grave warnings I ventured to express in the House in 1946 and in 1947, when I emphasised that it was important that as mass education was begun there
  1436
  should be a concomitant supply of good and religious literature and of an adequate local vernacular press, because otherwise the result would only be to foster, help and assist Communist propaganda, while at the same time we would witness the degradation of the African mind by a yellow press of an appalling kind. Neither does paragraph 446 of the report, which refers to the state of the native press, reveal any sense of urgency in the minds either of the Colonial Office or of the Colonial Secretary. Yet the picture is painted in ominous colours.
  If I have interpreted all these paragraphs correctly, the Government are guilty of folly and neglect in this sphere. I beg the Colonial Secretary to assure us tonight that he has not started mass education without taking the necessary preliminary and simultaneous steps by the provision of adequate supplies of suitable reading matter. My final question is to ask the right hon. Gentleman what is being taught as a result of the introduction of mass education in the way of principles of ethics and of loyalties, and particularly of loyalties in those areas of the Empire where federation is now being considered.
  6.28 p.m.
  Mr. Thomas Reid: My right hon. Friend the Colonial Secretary stated that the Colonies were passing through a stage of transition. I would rather describe it as a period of revolution, which began in the various Colonies because of the impact of white civilisation upon the more or less stagnant civilisations of those countries. Since the war, of course, this trend has been accelerated at a violent pace. I have been in many of these Colonies and I have the greatest sympathy for the natives thereof, whose lives have been impinged upon by an alien form of civilisation which has disturbed the even tenor of their ways.
  What has been called the "simple" life of the native is anything but simple, as is revealed by history. Civil and tribal wars and other things took place, but, whatever it was, on top of this simple life the white man has impinged upon their civilisation. I have the greatest sympathy for those peoples. I am very pleased, therefore, to find that all over the Colonial Empire the native peoples have not fallen down before this impact of Western civilisation in the

  1437
  same way that the Red Indians did in North America. It is a sign of the vitality and virility of the colonial races when they begin to jib at white domination, and I do not resent their doing so.
  We have provided in the Colonies an administration unsurpassed anywhere for ability and integrity and humanitarian feelings. But, in spite of that, a very small intelligentsia grows up. It is made self-conscious by education and, in spite of all the benefits our Government bestows on these Colonies, those people become discontented and then move for self-government, and the demand for self-government continues to grow. Also, whatever their ancestors' ways of life may have been, they desire a Western standard of living. But the Western standard of living, or anything approaching it, cannot be provided by a man working with a hoe or a buffalo. Therefore, science has to be applied to provide the wealth required to provide a Western standard of living or something approaching it. That requires an enormous amount of money, not £120 million, but thousands of millions to provide or approach the standard of living of ourselves, the French; the Belgians and others.
  In spite of that, the intelligentsia demand self-government straight away regardless of their country's poverty. We hear statements made such as, "Ceylon has got self-government; why should we not have it?" To show how absurd that is, we should remember that the revenue of Ceylon which is not as large as Ireland, is bigger than that of Nigeria, which is as big as nearly the whole of Europe, yet some Nigerians claim to be in the same position as Ceylon. I agree with what my right hon. Friend said, that self-government must be based on a stable and prosperous economy. Very few of these Governments could pay the cost of running a modern printing press to print the proceedings of a proper Parliamentary institution.
  In my opinion, the changes which have been made, the recent big change in our policy initiated by the Colonial Development Fund of £120 million passed by the Coalition Government, and the setting up by the Labour Government of two Colonial Development Corporations to meet the needs of the Colonies have
  1438
  come only in the nick of time because millions of these peoples were faced with starvation.
  It is only by investment of capital on a huge scale and a radical change in the economic life of these countries that starvation can be avoided. The reason is that in these territories the birthrate is generally something like 40 per 1,000 as against our rate of 13 to 15 per 1,000. As they reject any form of birth control in their customs or teachings, many of these Colonies are moving towards famine and epidemics. It remains to be seen whether we can check that process.
  People who deal with this problem say that education is the remedy for this large increase in population. But it is a great mistake to think that remedies which work in the West will work elsewhere. There is a thing called the tropical sun, which has a very enervating influence, and it remains to be seen whether education will correct this tendency and bring in some form of birth control. I have my doubts, but if education could be provided, I do not agree with the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Donner) who recommends that a Royal Commission should go roaming about the colonies. I can assure him that a lot of educationists who have worked for years there, know their jobs and know the people and are much better able to frame an educational policy than a roving commission sent from England.
  If education is to be the remedy—and it is necessary even for economic reasons, because we cannot develop the economy of Colonies as long as people are in gross ignorance, and a certain amount of intelligence must be developed to produce even mechanics—who is to pay for the education of 60 million people? We have 50 million in this country, and I ask the Committee if the idea is entertained that in addition to providing education for our own people which costs an enormous amount of money, we should supplement enormously the revenues of the Colonies to educate 60 million people there as well. I do not think it can be done.
  I am in favour of the Government pressing forward as quickly as possible with the development of self-government in these Colonies, because as long as they look to the British taxpayer, as they are doing today, to provide for every emergency and to provide tens of millions of

  1439
  pounds, they will not have a sense of responsibility. That is one of the great evils of our rule in these Colonies; that it destroys a sense of responsibility in the people themselves, however good that rule may be. I agree with my right hon. Friend in saying that the policy is to train the people in self-government and to lay the foundations of an economy on which sell-government can be built. I say more power to him; proceed with it as quickly as possible. I have lived in these Colonies and I know the risks of breakdown, but the risks should be taken and the responsibility placed on the educated leaders of the peoples themselves.
  The Trusteeship Council's report on Tanganyika was quite irresponsible and largely propaganda. It recommended enormous capital expenditure on the Colonies. Of course, people on this sort of international council are always extremely generous with American or British money, but I suggest to them that they should urge U.N.O. and the member States concerned to put up money for the development of the Colonies for the good of colonials and the good of the world.
  A year ago I stated in this House that in my opinion we cannot do the job for our enormous territories. It must be done by international help and international co-operation. We simply cannot do it unaided. The taxpayers of Britain cannot do it. Therefore, I urge my right hon. Friend in his dealings with U.N.O. to stress the fact that the United Nations must come to the rescue of countries battling for the good of the colonial peoples.
  We acquired colonies often at the request of the peoples in them, and old Liberal Governments in the days of Gladstone rejected time and time again the requests of native peoples who wished to come into the British Empire. Other colonies came to us as a result of wars, and generally of wars in Europe which we won and thereafter took over French or Dutch possessions. Sometimes our colonies were acquired for strategic reasons by conquest. The African possessions were acquired often not for motives of gain, but for strategic reasons. I would remind the Committee that British Somaliland, which has cost us money annually and is nothing more than a desert, may have great strategic importance.
  1440
  Our previous history has landed us with enormous territories, and those territories are absolutely defenceless. We cannot defend them. Unfortunately, in the recent war, in spite of the fact that we were geared for war, Malaya and Burma fell, and if another world war occurs, we cannot defend these colonial territories. There, again, the key to the development and to the destiny of the Colonies in the future is that they must have international collective security. It may be regional collective security, but that is the only way of preserving them from the aggressor in the future.
  Our commitments, economic, strategic and humanitarian, in respect of the colonial territories are colossal. We have more than 60 million people who depend largely upon us. They are helpless people in a backward state and in extreme poverty, looking to us to save them. It is quite natural that these people as they develop, resent alien domination, and, above all, they resent white domination. Whether that is right, or wrong, it is a fact. Then Communist imperialism comes on the scene to cash in on this colour problem, trying to persuade all these people to become Communists. If ever that occurred, it would mean that they would all become political serfs.
  We have to meet an appallingly serious situation in the Colonies because of this population problem, because of poverty and all the rest, and we have embarked upon a vast outlay through the Overseas' Corporations. Not only that, but we have enabled the Colonies to float very big loans on the London market and elsewhere—I think some in the Colonies—and although we do not legally guarantee these loans, as everyone knows, they are in reality guaranteed by the British Government. Everyone well knows how often in the past we have had to waive these loans because the Colonies could not pay back the principal. In addition to that, we have undertaken another big responsibility. The Colonies are to borrow money from the International Bank of Reconstruction, but the International Bank of Reconstruction will not lend money to the Colonies unless the loans are guaranteed by Britain.
  I ask my right hon. Friend to realise that we are entering into enormous financial commitments over the Colonies, and I urge him to see that our guarantees

  1441
  do not in the future land us in bad debts. In an answer today, my right hon. Friend said that since 1944 we have given, in free gifts to the Colonies, about £300 million sterling. These are huge figures, commitments and terrific responsibilities, and I urge my right hon. Friend again to appreciate that we simply cannot continue at this pace. My right hon. Friend said today what we all knew was bound to happen—that the £120 million granted in 1945 as a free gift to the Colonies is quite insufficient. A sum of £1,020 million would be quite insufficient. What is to happen when the £120 million is exhausted? For the first time Colonial administrators have a chance of doing really constructive work in the Colonies owing to this gift, since in the past, except in some richer Colonies, they were handicapped because they could not make bricks without straw. They never had the capital or the revenue to pay for the services they would like to provide to win the race against the birth rate.
  I ask the Committee to face the facts of the enormous commitments and the enormous responsibilities we have undertaken for the future. I want to put in a word for the British taxpayer who, according to the American newspaper, "The Washington Post," is at present burdened with "savage but equitable taxation." There are limits to the taxation which the British taxpayer can or will bear. When we look at the Estimates we find that every year the expenses of the Colonial Department go up, just as do the expenses of other departments. Let us take the Middle East services, excluding Palestine, the winding up of which cost us £13 million last year and £2¾ million this year—a tidy sum; but leaving that out, the expenses of the Middle East services have shown an increase of £2 million this year over last year and the grants in aid to Colonial Governments, which last year were only £1½ million, have this year gone up by £2 million and are £3¾ million. There are two items.
  Again, the taxpayer has to pay and the taxpayer is already overburdened. I ask my right hon. Friend if he would ask the Governments of the Colonies to try to run their own Colonies without coming to the British taxpayer for aid. It is perfectly easy, as any administrator knows, to do a wonderful job if some-
  1442
  body provides the money with which to do it. The real administrator is the man who, with limited means, develops a territory and makes it pay for itself and more than that.
  I stress again that the terrible problem of the Colonies is this question of population. I do not think it has been mentioned in previous speeches, but anyone who knows India knows that the population there is increasing today by five million a year. In Japan, in spite of the war and the devastation following the war, the population is increasing by one million a year—though Japan is now living on American charity. This is the problem of the tropics, and Mr. Nehru, whom I saw the other day, when he was over here, knows it well. Every Colonial administrator knows it, and it is the problem which we have to face. As time goes on this House will be asked from time to time to face this problem and the problem of how to provide the capital and revenue which the Colonies need, I suggest, again, that we cannot do it. France cannot do it. The only solution to this terrible population problem in the Colonies is for the United Nations and its members to put their hands into their pockets and, following Mr. Truman's lead when he indicated that America would be willing to help, to offer their help. If the nations of the world do not solve this problem I suggest that we alone will be unable to do so.
  6.45 p.m.
  General Sir George Jeffreys: The only point I wish to raise is one on which I hope the Under-Secretary, when he winds up, will be able to give me some not unfavourable answer. It is the position, the grievances and, I would say, I am afraid, the sufferings of the ex-Service men of the First World War in Jamaica. So far as their grievances are concerned, I have information in which I have confidence from a British officer, whom I have known for many years and who has been resident in Jamaica, from a representative of the British Legion, who went to Jamaica recently to investigate, and from a body about which I know less but which wrote to me and which is called the Jamaica ex-Service Trade and People's Labour Union. All these are agreed as to the grievances of the ex-Service men in Jamaica.

  1443
  What they say is confirmed by Mr. Bustamente, who is Minister of Communications in Jamaica and who told me, when he was over here last year, that he considered these ex-Service men had a genuine grievance. A letter written from him to the ex-Service men's union which I have mentioned was sent by them to me and I will read one or two short extracts from it. This is what Mr. Bustamente writes:
  "Rest assured that I will do everything humanly possible, as a Member of Government, to try and help the ex-Service men."
  A little later he goes on to say:
  "The ex-Service men … should help … a little by not only organising now, but to keep on organising and stay out of politics."
  I do not know what that refers to, but at least Mr. Bustamente is urging them to stay out of politics. His letter concludes:
  "Up to now you have behaved in a most exemplary manner even though you have so many grievances. … I still maintain that we have some obligation to you as a body."
  I give that as Mr. Bustamente's opinion which, after all, he gives in writing to these people. I will leave it at that.
  The facts are as follow. In the First World War there were nine battalions of the British West India Regiment raised and these battalions served overseas in France, in Egypt, in Palestine and elsewhere from 1914 to 1918. The men were all volunteers and certain promises of benefits on demobilisation were made to them when they enlisted. Amongst those promises were, in the first place, that each man would get five acres of fertile land together with allowances for a house, and for tools, and £100 as Colonial bonus. They were also told they would get a further bonus from the Imperial Government and in 1916 the then British Government sent a message saying that they would be responsible for each man who went overseas from the West Indies. Thus, at any rate, some degree of responsibility for these men rests not only on the Jamaican Government but on the Government of this country as well. These ex-Service men claim that the promises made to them by both Governments ought to be fulfilled without further delay.
  Actually, the promises have unfortunately not been carried out. In Jamaica the public appears to be just bored with
  1444
  the matter, whilst the Government of Jamaica constantly evade the issue, and certainly do not appear to be friendly to the claims of the men. In this country no one, not even the Colonial Office—except for such information as it has received from me—appears to know anything about the matter whatever. The principal grievances of these ex-Service men are as regards the scheme for settling them on the land. In actual fact the smallholdings on which they were settled, and which were given to them, are in most cases impossible to cultivate. They are barren, stony and in many cases waterless. No assistance or advice, still less any technical advice and the training referred to by the Secretary of State today, or, what would have been really useful to them, agricultural training, was ever given and they were left to do the best they could for themselves. Huts which they built for themselves are ramshackle and dilapidated. The men have insufficient clothing, they are often underfed, and it is hardly too much to say that in many cases they are practically destitute.
  To inquire into the grievances of these ex-Service men a committee was appointed in 1946 under the chairmanship of Major Curphey. This committee was to review the arrangements made for the settling on the land of ex-soldiers of the 1914–18 war, with particular reference to the possibilities of exchanging for more suitable holdings such land as in the opinion of the committee could not be cultivated. The committee reported in November, 1947, but their report has never been published.
  The Secretary of State for the Colonies, in a letter to me on 2nd December, 1948, which was giving me further information with regard to a Question which I put in this House in September, 1948, said it was not considered advisable to publish the report at this juncture since it would only tend to encourage false hopes to the ex-Service men concerned. That was the gist of a much longer letter after the Secretary of State had consulted with the Government of Jamaica regarding my Questions. But various stories have got about in the island to the effect that in the main the report was favourable to the claims of these men and this discontent among them has been greatly increased by its non-publication. It is, therefore,

  1445
  most desirable, I would submit, that it should be published and published at once. I most earnestly urge that action should be taken to redress the grievances of these men. They were volunteers from an island whose people we should remember were far removed from the horrors of war.
  Though the men in question are not of a high educational standard and are certainly not very young now, they are decent men who left their homes and occupations as volunteers and made sacrifices to serve the Empire. It is far from creditable to the Government and people of Jamaica that they should completely disregard both the sacrifices and the claims of these men. I say again that the British Government are not without responsibility in this matter and they should bring strong pressure to bear on the Jamaican Government to take immediate and effective action to assist these men and certainly to put into effect the recommendations of their own Curphey Committee.
  While my plea is primarily on behalf of the 1914–18 men, my information is that men of the Second World War are not in a very much better plight, and, in view again of what seems to me to be the almost callous disregard of the interests of these volunteers of two wars, I cannot help wondering what would be the response should there be another call to Jamaica to send large forces abroad to help this country in her need and to serve the Empire. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will be able to give me an answer which will not be un-favourable to the case I have put forward.
  6.56 p.m.
  Mr. Michael Foot: The hon. and gallant Member for Petersfield (Sir G. Jeffreys) raised a particular subject about which it is not possible for back bench Members to know the rights and wrongs. I would only say that, so far as Mr. Bustamente is concerned, he has a powerful position inside the Jamaican Government, and his interest in the Government is not entirely, confined to the country's communication system. Therefore, if he thinks there is a real grievance in the case of these ex-Service men of both the First and Second World Wars, then it is his business to raise the matter in the Jamaican Government. I am not saying this because I
  1446
  know anything about the matter; obviously I do not, but I think it is only right that it should be said, and it should not be thought that the responsibility for this matter, if there is one, rests entirely with the Government of this country.
  The hon. Member for Mid-Bedford (Mr. Lennox-Boyd) said that this had been a very harmonious Debate. When such an aggressive individualist as the hon. Member for Mid-Bedford sings in tune there is an obligation on the rest of us to do the same. I propose to introduce hardly any controversial notes into this discussion, because there is one subject which I wish to raise and discuss with the representatives of the Government. I would say only one thing about the speech of the hon. Member for Mid-Bedford. He paid some very generous and just compliments to the Colonial Secretary and to the administration of the Colonial Office during the past year. I think all those compliments were well deserved. But because the hon. Member paid them, he had to find some criticism to make and he directed his criticism to ideas advanced by the Colonial Secretary some 10 years ago.
  Perhaps more than any other member of the Government—and that is saying a lot—the Colonial Secretary has had the opportunity of carrying out what he did say 10 years ago. It must be a great gratification to him that during the past three years there has been a much bigger expansion of trade in the Colonial Empire than ever before in British history. We are exporting capital goods to the British Empire on a far bigger scale than in 1938. It was 10 or 15 years ago that the Colonial Secretary was telling us in many pamphlets and speeches of the necessity for fighting the root evil of poverty in those countries—sheer, naked poverty; not poverty introduced by any particular exploitation or anything of that kind, although exploitation had often played a part, but the root cause of sheer, naked poverty. The right hon. Gentleman was urging that there should be a greater capital investment in the Colonies, and today we are investing in the Colonies on a greater scale than ever before. That must be a great gratification to him.
  The particular subject to which I wish to refer is West Indian sugar. It was discussed by the hon. Gentleman, and I congratulate him on the contribution he

  1447
  made today on that subject. It is a great advance on the stand made by the hon. Member and his party about a month ago. He has not come quite to the full position of reality yet. I hope that he will explain in greater detail at some later date how, in fact, he is to work a system of long-term contracts and guaranteed prices while he abandons the whole system of purchase by a single department in the country. He has not explained that point. It is not explained in the Imperial policy put out by the Conservative Party. We will await further information about how it is to be worked out. But we should not be churlish in congratulating the hon. Gentleman on having come the distance which he has come since the last Debate on this subject took place in the House of Commons.
  I do not apologise for a moment for raising again the question of West Indian sugar. I do not believe that any of our projects of colonial development, or any of the work of the Colonial Development Corporation as it applies to the West Indies, can be of comparable importance to the question of what we are to do to ensure an expanding sugar production in those islands. Every Royal Commission has confirmed that almost all the islands are entirely, or almost entirely, dependent upon sugar production. Therefore, it is vital to the whole idea of advance in education and health, and in every other direction, in the West Indies in particular, that there should be a healthy sugar industry.
  The question is much more urgent, as the hon. Member for Mid-Bedford suggested, because of the delegation which is now in this country negotiating on this subject with the Government. I am sure that the Colonial Office will do everything in their power to assist the delegation to state their views to other Government Departments. But I do not think that this concerns only the Colonial Office. This is a Cabinet matter. I am sure that the decision about what we are to do about the sugar industry in the West Indies is one which should be brought before the Cabinet, because the whole future of the West Indies depends on the decisions we now make.
  If we do not make wise decisions about the sugar industry in the West Indies now, we shall be faced with incalculably
  1448
  dangerous political consequences later on. Even on the narrow issue of finance we might try to save a few million pounds now and be landed with a much greater expenditure three or four years later. I believe that the need to present the case of the West Indies before Parliament is made the more necessary because of misrepresentations about their case which have appeared in this country. I do not at the moment attack hon. Gentlemen opposite about this matter, although I could on other occasions or if I had more time. But misrepresentations about the case of the West Indies have been put about in the Press of this country.
  There was a disgraceful article in the "Evening Standard" last night which gave a totally false impression about what the people of the West Indies are asking for. I wonder if the people who write this kind of drivel really understand what happens in the West Indies when that kind of story is sent back to the West Indies.
  Mr. Stokes: What line did it take?
  Mr. Foot: It should be appreciated what a disastrous effect it has in the West Indies when quotations are made from a newspaper article published in this country suggesting that the people there are asking for something quite monstrous and absurd. The "Evening Standard" suggested that the sugar producers were asking for the subsidisation of inefficiency and wastefulness, and for a purely monopoly price. The article attacked the producers' organisations in the West Indies for having put up these kind of claims.
  It is monstrously unfair that it should be suggested that they are asking for anything of the kind. What they are asking for are what they consider as fair prices for an industry which has been held by several inquiries to be the most efficient agriculturally in the West Indies. Every Royal Commission has said that. They are asking for a structure of prices which will offset political action taken elsewhere to maintain uneconomic sugar production. The "Evening Standard" argues that what the West Indies and the sugar producers need is not bulk purchase, long-term contracts or guaranteed prices, but Imperial Preference. Imperial

  1449
  Preference is really totally irrelevant to the problem. It is totally irrelevant for this simple reason. It is possible for the Cuban price of sugar to be forced down by a lot of different developments which may take place. If Cuba bas certain tonnages of sugar which she must sell at any price—and that has happened on many previous occasions—then the higher the preference that we offer, the lower the price at which Cuba has to sell. Therefore, Imperial Preference does not protect the sugar industry in the West Indies.
  All the members of the delegation now in this country recognise that fact. All the political leaders in every party in Jamaica and in the West Indies generally recognise that fact. It really is absurd to suggest that Imperial Preference can solve the problem which the sugar industry in the West Indies must face. It is ludicrous to link the price which the British West Indian producer has to accept with the price which Cuba receives for her surplus. That is exactly what Imperial Preference does, if it is Imperial Preference by itself without anything else. I do not say that I am against Imperial Preference. In certain instances I think it is necessary, but as applied to the sugar industry in the West Indies it does not begin to meet their problem. It is a misrepresentation of the whole position to suggest that it can solve their problem.
  What is exactly the position which faces the Government of this country? We have agreed to take all the sugar which the West Indies can produce up to 1952. But what they are asking is that there shall be an extension of that contract to a period of 10 years, with some method of negotiating prices annually and periodically, and with some possibility of expanding their industry to supply larger quantities to us. They also want an assurance that the calculation of those prices shall not be directly linked to the Cuban price or to the so-called world price. This fixing of the prices is a complicated problem. No one pretends it is easy. I think that the people in the West Indies have a very powerful case in this respect, because on 17th September, 1948, the Chancellor of the Exchequer made his famous statement on the way in which he thought the Government would be able to deal with the purchase of primary commodities, not only
  1450
  from the West Indies but from other parts of the Empire as well.
  It was said specifically in that document that in some cases these contracts should be for up to a period of 10 years. If that statement were to apply to any commodity I should think that it should apply to sugar, because the whole of the West Indies is dependent upon sugar. There is probably no single commodity on which a great part of the British Commonwealth is so dependent as the West Indies is dependent upon sugar. Therefore, I think that it was legitimate for the people of the West Indies to assume that that statement of 17th September, 1948, by the Chancellor of the Exchequer should have given at least the general principles on which the Government were to act in the matter.
  What the Government must decide—and I am sure that the Colonial Office is in favour of this—is whether they are to carry out the principle underlying that declaration of 17th September or whether they are not. What are the objections which might be raised to pressing forward with this policy of long-term contracts, in particular for the sugar industry? Is it the case that the Government's advisers—either the advisers to the Ministry of Food or to the Treasury—are considering a return to free market conditions in sugar and allegiance to the idea of a world price after 1952 when the present contract comes to an end? We should be able to try to discover whether that is in their minds.
  I have referred to this matter in Parliament before, and I have argued that the world price for sugar is a fiction. Every Royal Commission which we have set up on this subject has agreed that it is a fiction. For instance, the Royal Commission appointed just before the war which was sent to the West Indies discussed the subject at length. Throughout the discussions it referred to the "so-called free market in sugar." It said that precisely because it believed that there was no such thing as a free market in sugar. It proved conclusively that no such free market in sugar existed before the war. Almost every country in the world was at that time subsidising sugar. The amount of sugar which, in any sense, could be called "free market sugar" was, at the outside, 12 per cent. of the total world production.

  1451
  After setting up a Royal Commission which examined this matter in the greatest possible detail and which concluded that it was hopeless to think that there was any such thing as a world price, what would be the use of returning to the idea that after 1952 we should allow that world price to settle the price we should pay to the people in the West Indies? Of course, if no world price existed in the 1930's it is even more fantastic to think that there is a world price for sugar today or that there will be a world price for sugar in any foreseeable future.
  I say it is a callous thing that we should ever hint or think of talking in terms of a world price when the whole future of the West Indies is at stake, and when every West Indian believes passionately, and that belief is confirmed by every Royal Commission, that no such thing as a world price of sugar exists. It is an immoral thing that we should think of lecturing the people of the West Indies about world price conditions when we are maintaining a far less economic industry for producing sugar in this country, and maintaining it in defiance of the advice given by the Royal Commission which was set up to consider the advisability of maintaining a beet sugar industry in this country in 1935.
  If we return to free market conditions in sugar, we would in fact be doing it in defiance of all the advice that has ever been given by every Royal Commission which has ever studied the subject, and not only the Commission in 1939, but also that which went out there in 1930 and was presided over by Lord Olivier. It went there when the so-called free market conditions were supposed to be operating, and the remedy which Lord Olivier proposed for the disease is exactly the system we are now operating in bulk purchase by a single agency on a long-term contract. Lord Olivier proposed that as the remedy for the free market conditions which existed in 1930, and if I had more time I could quote the actual words which were used in the Commission's report. Surely, we should be accepting the advice of all these Royal Commissions rather than continuing to lengthen out the process of these negotiations as to whether we can maintain this contract for a further period.
  1452
  I should like to mention two other objections which may be raised to maintaining this system of a long-term contract. Is it because of our agreement or likely agreement with the Americans that we are afraid to make a longer term agreement? The hon. Gentleman opposite referred to it, and nothing could be more grotesque than that this country should fail to make a long-term agreement with the West Indies because of what the Americans might say. The Americans' record in this matter is not clear at all.
  I do not complain about the Americans doing it, but it is no use the Americans lecturing us about discrimination and subsidising and all the rest when they have for years discriminated in the matter of sugar production in particular, and on a far bigger scale than we do. Before the war, whereas we were paying the British colonial producer, with preference, £11 5s. per ton, they were paying the Cuban producer about £16 per ton, which was a huge discrimination in favour of the Cuban producer. Therefore, there can be no reason why the Government should fail to go ahead in making this kind of agreement because of fears of what the Americans might say. I think we might welcome an argument with the Americans on that point, because it might clear up some other difficulties and misconceptions.
  The final objection is that there may be complaints from the Canadians or Australians. The Australians produce only an infinitesimal small amount of sugar, and it is fantastic that we should hold up an agreement with the West Indies, which is absolutely dependent on sugar, because we have not been able to get agreement with the Australians, who are only dependent on it to one or two per cent. of their total exports. As for the Canadians, I have got with me the exact quotations of what they have been saying. I have not the time to quote them, but some of them have been saying that it will be possible for them soon to return to the world price for sugar and that they will not be tied by long-term contracts, as in the past. That is really a bit thick. If Canadian wheat is purchased on a long-term contract, the Canadians have no right to insist that the long-term contract for West Indian sugar should be

  1453
  abandoned. I do not think we need consider very seriously the argument from the Canadian point of view.
  Finally, I would like to quote a few words from the Bishop of Barbados in a remarkable speech which he made a few weeks ago and in which he touches on this subject. After saying that he hoped all ideas of a return to decisions according to the world price would be abandoned, he said:
  "I must frankly admit that I cannot consider any West Indian problem without bearing in mind that history of these Colonies. The ancestors of the major portion of West Indian people were brought to this part of the world under conditions which were an insult to their status as persons and a sin against God. The present generation, whether in England or the West Indies, as well as present-day Governments, whether in the West Indies or England, are not responsible for that, but we are all responsible for doing all that is possible to prevent the future of the West Indian people being sacrificed to what I can only call a piece of sordid and cheap-jack commercialism."
  He makes a tremendous plea to the British people that we should understand how important it is for our own country and for our relations with the West Indies. I am sure the Colonial Secretary is doing all that he can to ensure that we do carry out the ideals which we have expressed on this matter, and that we do make such agreements with the West Indian producers. I hope that what has been said in the Committee today will assist my right hon. Friend in the business of getting the Government to examine this matter at Cabinet level in order to recognise that the whole future of the West Indies is at stake in this issue.
  7.16 p.m.
  Sir John Barlow: I do not propose to follow the hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Foot) in the detailed case which he put dealing with a commodity of which apparently he has considerable knowledge, because I think it unwise to follow an hon. Member on such a subject unless one has similar knowledge of it.
  I should like to refer quite briefly to the most interesting speech of the Secretary of State, and I say it was most interesting because of its great emphasis on welfare and education throughout the Colonies. I realise that it is most important that we should go ahead in both these directions, but I suggest that, in these difficult times, it is probably
  1454
  more important to get the economic side settled first and working in a satisfactory way before we can go very far ahead with the welfare and educational work which we all wish to see developed in the future. After all, a settled community in the Colonies largely rests upon a full and satisfied tummy in the native. That is the most important thing which we have to achieve in the Colonies at the present time, and I suggest to the Minister that he should consider much more carefully the economic side of the Colonies before he goes so fast with the welfare side.
  I was likewise interested to hear his reference to the new Colonial Development Corporation, and we shall look to the future of that Corporation with great interest in order to see how it develops in the different countries, commodities which have not been adequately developed in the past and which are not particularly suitable, for various reasons, for private enterprise. I hope the Under-Secretary will give us some indication as to the amount of dollar exchange which is being placed at the disposal of the Development Corporation. It has come to the attention of some of us that dollars are possibly being expended unnecessarily; for example, in Gambia, the poultry scheme, we are led to suppose, was started in an extravagant and wasteful way, because many dollars were expended in securing employees, poultry and hatching eggs for future stocks which could well have been secured in this country, with a saving of a substantial amount of dollars.
  I should also like to ask how we are encouraging private enterprise to develop in the Colonies. Is it the policy of the right hon. Gentleman's Department to encourage the Colonial Development Corporation to participate with private enterprise; that is to say, do they give a concession to private enterprise for a particular object; or is it part of the policy of his Department to say, "Yes, we give this concession, but we demand, and it is part of the concession, that we shall have 25, or it may be 50 per cent. interest in it financially and so many directors on the board"? I suggest that that would be unfortunate if it became at all widespread because there are many things which we believe private enterprise could develop very much better alone, and, unless they

  1455
  definitely ask the Colonial Development Corporation to go in with them, I suggest it should not be a necessary part of the bargain that they should participate.
  The Minister referred to the large contribution which the Colonies are making, particularly some of them, in the saving and earning of United States dollars. I am thinking particularly of the contribution being made by the rubber industry in Malaya, in which I have some interest, as I am a director of various companies producing rubber, and have other commercial interests in that country. Malaya has probably been the greatest single dollar-earner throughout the Colonies. Between January and June of last year, Malaya exported some 228,000 tons of rubber to America at a value of 90 million U.S. dollars. That was a very important contribution. In the same period this year they exported only 170,000 tons at a very much lower value—57 million dollars. That, unfortunately, was due to the very much lower price existing for rubber this year than last year.
  If the rubber value in Malaya is allowed to diminish, it will prejudice the quantity of dollars which that country can earn for itself and us as well. It is interesting to note, however, that apparently the Colonial Office allows Malaya to keep for her own use approximately half the dollars she earns. That is a rough and ready figure, but a reasonably accurate one. Last year, the Colony earned—when I say the Colony, I mean Malaya as a whole—some 229 million dollars, and she used in purchases for herself just over 100 million dollars—very nearly half. In the period from January to May this year, Malaya earned 83 million dollars and spent 48 million dollars. I suggest that, in the circumstances, that figure is too great.
  About a year ago I travelled through the Colony, and I found that one could purchase almost any kind of American car at a moment's notice, as well as British cars, and that one could buy many American textiles and other American goods which were not necessary to be on the market at that time. There were sufficient British cars available, and very nearly sufficient British textiles and other goods. It is no real service to the Colony, and a great disservice to the Empire as a whole, if
  1456
  it is using a greater number of dollars than is reasonably necessary. I made representations about it at the time, and as a consequence the dollar expenditure was reduced in certain directions. I hope the Minister will look into that point.
  Although everyone likes to spend dollars these days, I feel sure that if the matter were approached in a suitable way, the Colony would realise how very short of dollars we are today and that we deserve a greater proportion of the dollars which Malaya is earning at the present time. It might even be desirable to bring Malaya into the consultations concerning dollars which, I believe, are going on at the present time. After all, if one Colony earns an enormous quantity of dollars, it has some right to say how those dollars shall be spent. At the same time, I feel that we might get greater co-operation and much more sympathy in regard to this matter if Malaya were consulted more carefully.
  I would also urge the Minister to see whether he cannot stop up some of the holes through which dollars are leaking in that part of the world. We know that a great deal of rubber and other commodities are shipped to neutral markets and then re-sold to America, whereby the neutral markets get the benefit of the dollars. We also know that a substantial trade is being done in rubber between Siam and America. Siam is probably shipping far more rubber than she can possibly produce, which leads us to suppose that there is a very lucrative trade being carried on in shipping rubber from Malaya to Siam.
  Squadron-Leader Kinghorn: How does the hon. Gentleman propose to get over that difficulty?
  Sir J. Barlow: I do not believe it is an insuperable difficulty, and some such activities have already been stopped. I can suggest some ways of doing it if the hon. and gallant Gentleman likes to discuss the matter with me afterwards.
  Dr. Haden Guest: Some form of contract?
  Sir J. Barlow: Rubber dealers in Siam receive great benefit from shipping this rubber, because, I am informed, they are allowed to retain 80 per cent. of the dollar exchange for their own use and are required to pass only 20 per cent. to the Government. That is a very great

  1457
  incentive to them and the business is likely to grow. Similarly, I believe that quite recently it has been decided that Indonesian estates must sell 50 per cent. of their rubber to dollar markets. These two sources alone greatly prejudice the Malayan rubber market. I feel sure that the Minister knows quite a lot about this, and I urge him to try to stop some of these leakages. There are others even more flagrant which, perhaps, are best not mentioned here.
  I would also urge the Minister to try to negotiate with the Americans that the synthetic rubber which is produced in such large quantities at the present time should not be produced at its present rate. I believe they manufacture between 200,000 and 250,000 tons of synthetic rubber a year. They say that they can produce it on level terms with plantation rubber. If that is so, it is quite unnecessary to pass legislation requiring that small motor tyres shall contain 65 per cent. of synthetic rubber. There, again, I feel that it is one of those things which, by a sympathetic approach between the Colonial Office and the Americans, could be overcome. In any case, it is of vital importance that Malaya should continue to earn as many dollars as she has been doing and even to increase her earnings, if possible; but I seriously suggest that the distribution of the spending of those dollars should be considered by the Secretary of State.
  7.30 p.m.
  Dr. Haden Guest: The hon. Member for Eddisbury (Sir J. Barlow) is so full of information about rubber, that I shall not venture to follow him in his argument. I wish to draw the attention of the Committee, first of all, to the larger aspects of the matter in regard to the statement of the Minister and with regard to the blue book which I believe to be one of the most important publications that the House has had before it in recent years. The plan for the development of the Colonies is really so magnificent in its outline, so thorough and so complete, that I feel I have never read a Government document which has given me such great pleasure, remembering as I do the 1920's when those of us who were then interested in Colonial affairs were propounding what are now accepted by this Government as maxims of Government policy.
  1458
  This report is one of concrete achievements, and the plan behind it a greater one still. It is a plan to deal with the basic necessities of life in the Colonies. We know that in so many of the territories in Africa the level of nutrition is very low. In Malaya and in other eastern areas a similar low level is unfortunately characteristic, and is accompanied by a very serious amount of disease, including tuberculosis, worm infestations, leprosy, and a whole gamut of tropical disease. One hon. Member who mentioned the subject of tuberculosis seemed to think that this Debate was dealing with a medical report on the Colonies, instead of the question of the development of the Colonies as a whole, which is a much bigger and important subject. A great deal has been done by way of preventing disease in a manner which should have been tackled before.
  There is also the question of the health of animals and the application of veterinary science, while the great geological and timber surveys, which some of us have been advocating for years, are now being undertaken and will be of great benefit to the Colonies and to ourselves. The foundations of very great developments in the Colonies have been well and truly laid. On the political side, too, we have a great record, but I will not develop that.
  There is one point to which I wish to refer in detail in the report, which I hope the Colonial Secretary will accept. In page 95 of the report we have statements about visits paid to West Africa by consultants in obstetrics, tuberculosis and social and preventive medicine. These visits were of great value to the Colony. I mention that because in the report it stresses the fact that doctors are required in the Colonies, and up to the present sufficient numbers have not been obtained. It was suggested that efforts were being made to obtain them by improved terms of service and conditions—by competition in the open, free market against the demand for doctors in this country. The Colonial Office, however, must remember that the doctors do not exist in those numbers today. I say that with some knowledge of the medical situation. We have actually a shortage of general practitioners both here and in the Colonies. There has been no increase in medical schools in this country in recent years.

  1459
  It is true that colonial medical schools have been set up at Makerere in East Africa, at Ibadan in West Africa, in the West Indies and at Singapore and Hong Kong, but these schools cannot begin to supply any large number of medical officers for something like eight to ten years. It will take a long time before the number of medical officers increases. Therefore, there is no practical possibility of getting any large increase in the medical establishment of the Colonies in the immediate future.
  I believe that if the Colonies go into competition in the open market for specialists and general duty doctors in this country it would be a cardinal error, and would be no real advantage at all. It would be very much better to treat the colonial medical service as a whole as a branch of the National Health Service of this country. Doctors could be sent out, not necessarily for long periods in the Colonies but like the consultants mentioned in this report—not for a short visit but for six months or a year, and doing work in the medical services out there. When they return, other doctors from the National Health Service could take their places. That is a practical proposition, by which we would get more medical work done in the Colonies than at the present time by having a separate service.
  Mr. Gammans: What the hon. Gentleman is saying seems revolutionary, but my experience is that most doctors feel they have not much knowledge of tropical diseases until they have been in the country for at least a year.
  Dr. Guest: The question of tropical diseases can be quite adequately studied from the point of view of giving doctors sufficient knowledge, in this country, but that is not by any means the most important matter in the colonial field. The matter of nutrition is more important than tropical diseases. Such great advances which have been made in the treatment of tropical diseases show that it is not now the only important question. It is quite true that this is a revolutionary suggestion, but in this country we shall have to get used to revolutionary suggestions with regard to the medical profession, because there is no other way of dealing with our needs in view of the limited number of doctors.
  1460
  My right hon. Friend the Colonial Secretary knows perfectly well he cannot get all the doctors he wants, and I think in future he will have to get them through an arrangement with the National Health Service. He referred to that when he talked about seconding. That would mean seconding from the National Health Service in this country. That may also be required in other spheres outside this country where doctors are required, because otherwise they are difficult to get.
  I should like to know how far the Colonial Secretary can go with the doctors he has when dealing with the problem of malnutrition, tuberculosis, leprosy, and other tropical diseases. If he adopted another revolutionary suggestion, which I would venture to make, he could go a very long way to meet the situation. My right hon. Friend must face the fact that if medical treatment in the Colonies is to be effective it must be carried out on a different system to that by which it is carried out in this country, as there will not be for a very long period of years—certainly not within the lifetime of those now living—the number of doctors to deal with people in colonial areas in the same way as the people at home are treated. There will not be in the next 50 years in the Colonies the proportion of doctors to the population that there is in this country. They cannot be educated in sufficient numbers.
  Therefore, we will have to adopt the system of employing medical auxiliaries, who will carry out the medical preventive work without themselves being medically qualified but able to do it under medical direction. Take, for example, the very great leprosy problem of Nigeria. I do not know how many lepers there are in Nigeria now, but when I visited the country some years ago there were over one million there. There may be more now or there may be less.
  The main part of the cure is to segregate the people, look after them, make them clean and prevent them mixing with other people, because in that way the disease is spread. All this can be done by having a large number of people of the home visitor or sanitary inspector type to go amongst them and give them the necessary medicines under the general directions of a medical officer. In that way a doctor could supervise not only one centre of segregation serving an area,

  1461
  but perhaps half a dozen different centres. But it should be done by the Government. The Government should undertake the responsibility. I do not know what is now being done in Nigeria, and perhaps my right hon. Friend will be able to tell us that the Government of Nigeria are accepting responsibility for the treatment of leprosy. On the other hand, it may still be left in the hands of missionaries, as it was when I visited the country some years ago. I hope my right hon. Friend will be able to tell us something about that.
  Mr. Sparks: Can my hon. Friend say something about the possibility of training the native population to assist in the medical services?
  Dr. Guest: I am sorry if I did not make it clear that I am talking not about medical auxiliaries from this country but medical auxiliaries in Nigeria and the other Colonies. I am confident from what I have seen of these people—and I have seen a good deal of them, including those in the Far East in recent years—that it is possible to get an ordinary person, not necessarily a man who can read and write but a man who is intelligent, to do this kind of work which is the spade-work in clearing a country of leprosy and also of worm infestation, which is often very much worse than some other diseases. There is great medical work to be done in the Colonies, work which can be done on a large scale by employing medical auxiliaries rather than doctors.
  I am very glad to see that not only in this field but in other fields great work is being done, both in survey and research, which is certainly making a revolution in the life of our Colonies. What in the past was a great dream is now becoming a great reality. I say quite deliberately that a large amount of the credit for this is due to the policy that has been adopted by the Government. Many of us some 20 years ago had these ideas, but other Governments did not put the policy into operation. This Government is putting the policy into operation.
  7.44 p.m.
  Mr. Baldwin: The hon. Member for North Islington (Dr. Guest) will excuse me if I do not follow his particular topic. As I am fortunate enough not to have made any big de-
  1462
  mands on his profession, my knowledge on his subject is somewhat limited. I will deal with one point, however, and that is his remarks about turning out doctors from Makerere College. I had the privilege of visiting that college some years ago, and my impression was that, although it did a good job as far as doctors are concerned, it was better that they should concentrate more on teaching for the profession of a doctor than on turning out people who eventually became disgruntled black-coated workers. From that point of view, I think that their policy might be improved.
  I want to deal with a subject which has not been touched upon to any large extent in this Debate. The Secretary of State rather slid over a problem which has to be faced and on which some plain speaking is necessary, namely, the problem of political development. I am one of those who believe the first thing that is wanted for our Colonies in Africa is a clear statement of what we intend as to political development in that part of the world. Until we get a declaration as to what the political development is to be, we shall not get the economic development which is necessary. The Secretary of State has stressed the shortage of recruits in the Civil Service and other departments, but I say that he will never get young men to join the services for the African Colonies until they know something more about what their future is likely to be.
  A few days ago I had the privilege of a conversation with an eminent visitor from South Africa, and in the course of that conversation we turned rather naturally to the question of racial discrimination. I was very impressed with his final words, which were: "You in this country must believe that South Africa is sincere in her attitude towards the native population." He illustrated that by saying: "You people may go to bed with your problems, but you always wake up next morning knowing very well there will always be an England, but we go to bed with our problems never sure that there will always be an Africa." That is something we should keep in mind if we are inclined to criticise the action they are taking there.
  It is my impression that the fears expressed by that African are creeping up into East Africa. There is a fear

  1463
  about what the future of that part of the world is to be. A certain amount of trouble is brewing up there, and it is just as well that we should face it and make a clear declaration of what we intend to do. We want to know from the Secretary of State whether it is the policy of the Government to have an Africa that is black, white or a combination. Statements which are sometimes made by responsible Ministers are giving the impression to the Africans that we are on the way out. That is not the way to get long-term development. The result is more lawlessness and crimes in Africa than ever before. I wish the Secretary of State would come out with a forthright statement, such as that made by the Governor of Kenya, Sir Philip Mitchell:
  "This is a British Colony for better or for worse. The choice has been made, and this Kenya and all its people are for ever British."
  I should like the Secretary of State to say whether or not he endorses that statement. On another occasion, Sir Philip said:
  "It is a fact that there are people today with the fantastic idea of the creation here in Africa of an entirely native African self-governing State. That is as practical a proposition as it would be to set up in the United States an entirely autonomous, self-governing, Red Indian republic."
  That is a statement made by one of the greatest governors we have had for some time. It would help the development of Africa and the natives if we in this country were a little bit more forthright and followed the example of Sir Philip. Let us make a declaration and realise that the development of Africa is a long-term policy. I have corresponded with a young English farmer who went out there two years ago.
  Dr. Guest: Where?
  Mr. Baldwin: Kenya. He expresses the feelings which many settlers have at present He wrote:
  "I have done well since I have been out here. I have ploughed back whatever profits I have made and I am borrowing from the bank in order to develop by farm. I am now wondering what my future is. We hear of these various statements made in your country as to what the future of Africa might be. What do you advise? Should I pull out and go elsewhere and exploit the position or am I safe if I continue with the policy I should like to do, that is, to develop my farm?"
  1464
  He was expressing the opinion of many men in East Africa today.
  There is the case of Tanganyika. Why should we not make up our minds about where we stand? How can Tanganyika be developed on the basis of a 33 years' lease? Let the people there know whether they are to build a hut of wattle and daub or a house of stone, which will last. I do not wish to be thought reactionary in what I have said, but I believe in facing the position and not hiding it from the people of this country or Africa. I believe that if East Africa is to be developed it has to be developed by the European for many years. We must rule that country with kindness and firmness; we have to lead the African native.
  We must build steadily and surely, and what we require is leadership for those men. Many hon. Members had experience of these Africans in the late war, and would all pay tribute to the discipline and good citizenship of those men when they were led and when they were properly treated, with kindness. That is the policy which we should continue. We must rule them with authority. It is important for us today to get away from the distant rule of Whitehall. More authority to make decisions must be given to the people on the spot who know their job. Lord Milverton described the present method as the "Bureaucratic merry-go-round of Whitehall." I am glad to know that local government is to be set up and developed. I hope that that means that the African native as well as the European will help on the local government councils and will be given responsibility. If that country is to be developed they need that responsibility.
  As an example of the benefit of doing away with distant control, I would instance the Sudan, which has gone ahead by leaps and bounds since it got out of the control of Whitehall. Another example is Southern Rhodesia which now practically has self-government, and it has gone ahead by leaps and bounds. One of the reasons that country has gone forward is the fact that it now recruits its government officials from men on the spot, as far as possible. The civil servant in Rhodesia is expected to regard Rhodesia as his home. I hope that in future, when recruitment to the Civil

  1465
  Service or to any other department is necessary, it will as far as possible be from men who look upon Africa as their home. The idea of sending young men from this country to do a tour of service there, and being moved about from place to place, is out of date. That system served its purpose well in the past. There are many men in this country today who have given the best part of their lives as district officers, etc., in the development of Africa, but it is time for a change from that principle. Young men should now be recruited who represent the second and third generation born in that country, who look on Africa as their country, to carry on the work of that country.
  In order not to exceed the length of time which I promised I would speak, I will omit some of the things I wished to say. Africa has only been partially developed. To develop it properly a vast amount of finance is necessary. Before finance is attracted to Africa, the people who could put up that money must have confidence in the future. If their impression is that the British are on the way out, the necessary money will not be attracted. I suggest that if we have the confidence to show the people of the world that we intend to stay there and develop that Africa, we shall attract there some of the wealth which United States citizens now have in their country and do not know what to do with it. I am one of those who believe that America has to play the part which the British played in the 19th century and invest the money they have now lying idle in the development of backward countries and virgin land. Africa is the only territory where that can happen. If they would adopt that policy, it would assist in the solution of the financial troubles of the world today arising from the shortage of dollars, and might lead to the system of multilateral trade which is necessary before we restore our economy.
  I do not wish to see the African native spoiled by the sentimentalist and the unpractical ideologist. I want him to be treated in a practical way; I want him to be treated fairly. I have met the African native and I am fond of him. I realise that, if he is to get where we want him to get, he must be led properly, with firmness and kindness. I say to him that he must have patience, and then the slogan which he is so fond of displaying of "Africa
  1466
  for the Africans" may well come about, but it will be an Africa for Africans of all colours.
  7.57 p.m.
  Mr. A. Edward Davies: Many of us on these benches would agree with the view expressed by the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Baldwin) in the closing remarks he made, that Africa must be developed to a large extent by the Africans and for the Africans. He said earlier that we ought to declare our policy. The Government's policy has been clearly stated on many occasions, namely, the aim of self-government for the colonial peoples. As we all know, however, the problem of mixed races and religions makes the problem difficult and complex.
  I wish to speak tonight more particularly about staff, to which my right hon. Friend referred. He was glad to tell us, and we were pleased to hear, that so much had been done in recruiting, over the last 12 months or so, 5,000 men to the Colonial Service. He recognised and reminded us, however, that there was still a great gap to be filled. Some of us who have a nodding acquaintance with colonial affairs know that in the realm of medicine, agriculture, teaching and engineering this problem is seen in its sharpest form.
  I would remind my right hon. Friend that the Select Committee on Estimates, under the chairmanship of the hon. Member for Abingdon (Sir R. Glyn) issued a report last year and had some comments to make on those very points. It may be useful to remind hon. Members what the Committee said. It stated:
  "The limited number of fully qualified technicians available should concentrate on training local staff for technical positions. Schemes should be adopted for the recruitment into the forestry, agricultural and veterinary services of men without academic qualifications but of good personal qualities and natural aptitude. Such schemes should provide for their academic training at a later stage.
  Men and women, both European and colonial, who have not passed through a university, but whose attainments are of a matriculation standard and whose personality and abilities are promising, should be admitted to the Colonial Service."
  I think that those recommendations are still sound, and I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend is giving some attention to them. My right hon. Friend reminds me that they are being put into operation.

  1467
  Certainly, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Islington (Dr. Guest) said a few moments ago, it would be a hopeless task to try to provide for the millions in Africa and elsewhere, doctors all of whom we had to train in this country. The same thing is equally apposite to technicians and engineers. I was very glad to hear so much stress placed on the necessity, not of having people in the white-collar grades, lawyers and clerks, and so on, but technical people. We must help our friends overseas to get proper training to do the engineering and technical jobs with their own hands. Similarly, so far as doctors are concerned, we must get men in the Colonies to train as doctors or medical auxiliaries. We saw at Udi something of the great work which is done by such men, with a relatively small amount of money, in maternity and water services. I am glad to hear that opportunities are being given of seconding skilled people from this country, but I do not think that that is the complete answer to the problem which confronts us.
  Study of the Report of the Colonial Development Corporation, which came out a few days ago, shows there is a very creditable list of small works going ahead. I say "small." They are bigger than anything that has been put in hand before, but small in relation to the dimensions of the problem. I am glad to find so much attention being paid to the geological surveys, because it seems to me that, as the Colonial Territories Report so clearly brings out, we must know what are the possibilities and potentialities of the several countries before we can go on with large-scale developments. I see from the summary that there are no fewer than 14 schemes, and that a lot of money is provided for geological surveys. I feel sure that there are many rich deposits of ores which would be useful in building up the economy of the Colonial Territories, and which would make possible the establishment and development of primary and secondary industries in some of the Colonial Territories.
  There is a point, however, about the schemes to which I draw the attention of the Committee. We are told that, in the nine years from 1940 to now, schemes costing £51 million have been approved,
  1468
  but that the actual payments amount to £25.6 million, about half the amount of money for the schemes approved. One wonders whether we are sufficiently keeping pace with the needs of the areas. I was glad to hear from the right hon. Gentleman today that there is likely to be a big speed-up in the delivery of goods and in the progress of the schemes. I put to him the question whether he thought it would be necessary to adjust the time factor as set down in the 1945 Act, which provides that £120 million should be earmarked before March, 1956. He rightly reserved his views upon that matter.
  The need for development surely is accepted in all quarters of the Committee. The Report of the Colonial Development Corporation gives interesting figures about the standards of living in the Colonies, which are in general low. Measured in terms of productivity per head of population, and taking the national net productivity of the United Kingdom as 100, the index of productivity in the Colonies ranges from less than five in most African Colonies to something like 25 in the most developed West Indian Colonies. Measured in terms of the capital amount invested per head of the population in the most developed Colonies, it is not more than 10 per cent. of the national capital per head of the population of the United Kingdom. In Africa it is less than two per cent., which clearly shows, if any reminder is necessary, that there is a great field of work to be done.
  While the £120 million is a very great sum of money, and while it is being paid over at very great sacrifice from these small islands, and while it would be pretty impossible to do anything of a more substantial nature, I cannot help thinking that it is quite inadequate for the job in front of us. I am glad that, in another place yesterday, reference was made to the possibilities of using the resources of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, but I see from the Debate in the other place that a snag arises in that the rate of interest which is charged is rather prohibitive compared with the facilities which this country is able to give in other cases. For example, 3 per cent. interest is required, and 1½ per cent. commission is required, a total of 4½ per cent. One

  1469
  of the snags is, I assume, that if application is made to the International Bank for some assistance of this kind, it is accepted only on guarantee from the home Government, and really that does not get us very far, since we have so many burdens to carry.
  I think that this problem, if it is to be resolved within any measurable period of time, should be a matter of consideration by the United Nations. My time has expired. I promised to speak for a short time so that my hon. Friends might speak. I should have liked to refer to Mr. Truman's fourth point, in which he gave an indication that he was prepared to give some consideration to the development of backward areas. I know that the British Government have some hesitation in accepting that offer. After all, we should require to know what political strings were to be attached to any offer of that kind. If it means that the Americans would make available to us scientists, research workers and geologists to conduct surveys, it would be useful, but I think that, when we are putting money into the Empire or into any undeveloped area, it should not be on a national basis or by loan from any one country. I should prefer it to come from an international source, so that all the nations of the world would feel there were no political wires attached, and that they could have access to the development, and be able to work in co-operation with the principal country concerned.
  Despite my slight criticisms, I think the right hon. Gentleman and the Colonial Office are to be congratulated upon doing a fine job of work. Despite the criticisms which came from the hon. Member for Mid-Bedford (Mr. Lennox-Boyd)—I do not think that "criticisms" is quite the correct word, but he did in a slight aside talk about the dangers of State trading in buying primary commodities—I think that the people in Africa and elsewhere would acknowledge that the guarantee of a decent price for their commodities is a much better arrangement than that which they experienced some years ago, when very often they did not get anything like the real value for their goods. If we are to help these people forward, if we are to engage in long-term purchases of their primary commodities, let us as far as
  1470
  possible give them the best price, and let us try to come to some arrangement whereby the world price is not so much in excess of the price paid to the primary producers. That has happened with cocoa, and it has caused some disgruntlement. Having said that, I hope that my right hon. Friend will continue with the good work and bring us another report very soon.
  8.11 p.m.
  Mr. Beverley Baxter: Tonight I want to speak very briefly, because it has been admirable to see the way in which the Debate has been conducted, and in which everybody has condensed what they had to say in order to allow more hon. Members to speak. First I wish to deal with only one slightly controversial point, and that is the accusations against the Conservative Party—not many, only two—of neglect of the Empire in the past. In the years between the two wars, when Empire Debates were held in this House and my right hon. Friend the Member for West Bristol (Mr. Stanley) put forward many constructive and challenging plans for the Colonies, the Labour Party benches were nearly always empty. Well, there has been a good attendance today.
  Some hon. Gentlemen opposite are newcomers to these Debates, and I suggest that if there is any accusation to be made, hon. Gentleman opposite should point to the Liberal Party, which has at no time had one single Member present in this Debate. It may be that the Liberal Party has discovered a revival somewhere and has gone, like a water diviner, to find its depth. How the Liberal Party decided that not one Member should turn up on this Colonial Debate should be put to the country, and if it is in Order to challenge a newspaper—with great respect to newspapers—I should like to see whether tomorrow the "News Chronicle" publishes the statement that not one Member of the Liberal Party turned up for this Debate on the Colonies.
  Mr. Henderson Stewart: I am sure the hon. Gentleman would like to add that, despite the defection of the Liberal Party, the Liberal Nationals were very much to the fore.
  Mr. Baxter: The discovery of virtue in Liberal Nationals is an old

  1471
  Conservative custom, and we gladly acknowledge that we have had a valuable contribution from those benches. However, I will leave the "News Chronicle" to its conscience and to Mr. A. J. Cummings.
  Let me now say—because I am determined to come to the point of what I have to say—that this is a non-party subject. The development and the Government of the Colonies is something which I am certain is as much the concern of hon. Gentlemen opposite as of ourselves. We may approach the subject differently, but I am delighted—and I say this without reserve—to see the interest of the Socialist Party in the Colonies since 1945. I am delighted, considering the long years when they were as indifferent to it as the present Chancellor of the Exchequer was in the old days. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I do not want to put it too highly, but I assert that the Socialist Party in Opposition was almost as indifferent to the Empire and the Commonwealth as was the Chancellor of the Exchequer in those days.
  Mr. Creech Jones: As I myself was in this House during those years I can vouch for the fact that I was always present at those Debates, and a good number of my colleagues always supported me in the observations I had to make about Colonial policy.
  Mr. R. S. Hudson: Fortunately the right hon. Gentleman has changed his policy since then.
  Mr. Baxter: I agree that the Colonial Secretary was always there; so was the present Lord Ammon.
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd: He will not be tomorrow.
  Mr. Baxter: Wherever he may be tomorrow, he was there in the Empire Debates. So was the hon. Member for North Islington (Dr. Guest). They formed a litle nucleus. Let me add, since I am in a completely fair mood tonight, that there were not as many of our crowd as there should have been. But I say that in those days the attitude of the Socialist Party was like that of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who wanted to liquidate the Empire. They are a little ashamed of that, and I think that
  1472
  they, like him, have changed, and we are delighted to welcome them into the fold.
  I should like to congratulate the Colonial Secretary on the success of his Exhibition, which was imaginative and constructive. I was a little worried in his speech about his use of the phrase that in the Colonies there was "room for private undertakers." That seemed against the best instincts of nationalisation. Of course, it may have been a little verbal slip; or perhaps it is an approach to us, and that by saying there was room for private undertakers he was referring to a system of burying the hatchet. At any rate, it was an unfortunate phrase, which probably just slipped out. I must not allow my congratulations to go on too long, but I must say that I personally think this whole report is fine, human and constructive; and lastly, I congratulate the Colonial Secretary on his speech.
  I now want to speak for a few moments on the somewhat wider aspect of this subject. The Colonies are today assuming an importance which goes beyond the British Empire and beyond the sterling bloc. They have become of tremendous importance. We are seeing in the world today—as I think the Foreign Secretary said the other night when winding up the Economic Debate—the almost inevitable division of the world into two sections. The terrifying thing is that it might divide into three sections. I do not speak at all facetiously when I say that if we look back into history and then look at the present day we see that we are beginning the third British Empire. I use the phrase "British Empire"; I cannot be bothered with the word "Commonwealth." The first British Empire ended with the loss of the American Colonies; the second British Empire began with the inclusion of India; and, broadly speaking, the second British Empire ended with the withdrawal of India as we knew it and its achievement of republic status. I am not at all certain that the third British Empire will not see the return of the American Colonies. I do not say that facetiously, although I agree that it will not be in terms of status.
  To my mind, the Americans are faced with a problem they cannot solve: how to sell goods to the world when there are no dollars to buy them. My own native country of Canada, having done well in a material way, having suffered much in

  1473
  other ways in the war, and having been as generous as they could be, but nevertheless having done materially well becaues during the war they had Lend-Lease orders, and also money from this country to build up their industries, will find themselves as a dollar country with an outside world with no dollars. Now the Americans, who can think deeply, know this. I myself think that there is only one solution to the approaching world economic disaster, and that is for the Americans and the Canadians—and I hope the Canadians will come altogether into the sterling bloc—to find some way to come into the sterling economy with free interchangeable currency, as this country in the 19th century went into America after the Civil War and built up the American economy. Therefore, I think that the Colonies had become of enormous political and economic importance, quite outside development.
  We oppose each other and say harsh things; some of the harsh things are true, especially when we say them. But I would like to pay tribute to a man who is not an easy fellow-traveller for any party—Lord Beaverbrook, who preached night and day, especially on Sundays, Empire free trade. Whether he put it over in such a way that it was not easy to get on the band wagon I do not know, but we are coming to it today. There is no other solution, and we must pay our tribute to Lord Beaverbrook. He is not a great favourite with the Conservative Party, so that if Members opposite want to cheer it will be in Order. Let us give him credit for what he did—
  Mr. Rankin: Does the hon. Gentleman want to palm him off on to us?
  Mr. Baxter: So far, I have made a non-controversial speech, and I trust that what I am about to say will continue to be non-controversial. The Colonies today offer themselves to the agents of unrest, to the agitators. They are a natural soil in which to breed trouble. While I believe implicitly in Imperial Preference, and dislike bulk buying in the ordinary sense of the term, I see no reason why Britain and the United States should not find some means of guaranteeing prices of commodities for a short period—say, five years. It would have an enormously steadying effect on economy and trade everywhere.
  Mr. Gallacher: It is just an illusion.
  Mr. Baxter: Rather than spend too much money on armaments, although that is important, spend it on killing Communism in the only way in which it can be killed—by creating conditions in which it cannot grow.
  Mr. Gallacher: The old, old story.
  Mr. Baxter: I felt that the hon. Gentleman would have something to say about this. I do not believe that we can destroy Communism with bombs or guns. We can only destroy it by creating world conditions which will make trouble and unrest impossible.
  Mr. Gallacher rose—
  Mr. Baxter: I cannot give way; my time is limited. I believe that America, Canada and the Empire generally might agree to a system of guaranteed prices of commodities, even if it costs them money, which would steady the world and save Colonial territories from being a natural breeding ground for trouble.
  Lastly, I wish to refer to the problem of welcoming visitors to this country from our Colonies. It is not an easy problem to solve. I wrote an article as a result of which a Nigerian student, in turn, wrote to me, calling me "My Lord" because I understand that that is their custom. He said he was coming here to attend a university, and I asked him to visit me. He came to my house and brought me an ebony carving of a Nigerian head, not a very valuable gift. He said, "It is our custom that when we go away we should take presents." I thought it a pity that he could not teach us similar politeness. During the war the West African students who came here became very bitter. They were being educated here, and when they left with that feeling of bitterness, it meant that they would go back and possibly make trouble.
  I know that the Minister is a humanitarian and an understanding man, and I would ask him to try to ensure that so far as possible these men are welcomed properly when they come to this country. If it were possible I would like them to see the inside of English homes, because I am sure that would help. There is an old saying that racial equality is a policy only put forward by a country that has

  1475
  no colour problem. There is some basic sense in that, but I would like to think that we would give more thought to the problem of welcoming Colonial visitors, so that when they go back home they can take up the great task of building up the British Empire.
  8.26 p.m.
  Mr. Awbery: Listening to the hon. Member for Wood Green (Mr. Baxter), I wondered whether we ought to consider ourselves as being a colony of the United States or whether the United States should be considered as a colony of the British Empire. I have read the blue book, but I find nothing in it about either of those things. Today, some hon. Members have stressed particularly the political development of our Colonies and others have stressed their economic development. I want to talk about the social welfare of our colonial peoples—the human side which we are apt to misunderstand.
  Before doing so, however, I should like to wholeheartedly congratulate my right hon. Friend upon the wonderful speech he made in the opening Debate. It showed me, at any rate, that during the past few years there has been a change in the method of our approach to colonial problems. I am sure that our Colonies will give a warm and sincere welcome to my right hon. Friend's words. My right hon. Friend spoke of what we have done during the past few years and what we intend to do. As a Celt, I would say that there was little fire in his speech but that it was full of interest and facts. The hon. Member for Mid-Bedford (Mr. Lennox-Boyd), who opened for the Opposition, praised my right hon. Friend for his work and also made a fine speech, but there were too many "ifs" and "buts" in it.
  I want to deal with colonies generally before referring particularly to the colony or dependency I know. There have been. great changes, politically, economically and socially, in our Colonies. We cannot ignore the changes which have taken place, but we can adapt ourselves to them. If we refuse to recognise those changes it will be dangerous for us and will be the first step to losing our Colonies to Communism or to some other "ism." We are directly responsible in this Parliament for the administration of the
  1476
  Colonies, and we must give effect to the changes on democratic lines. We can then hold the Colonies and Dependencies. If we hold them for the purpose of exploitation only, there is a danger that we shall lose them altogether. It is our duty to create in the Colonies a sense of responsibility and to help them in every respect. We should do all that we can to develop a democratic spirit in the Colonies and to help the people to adapt themselves to changing circumstances.
  I have read with great care the Report of the Colonial Office, and I think that it is one of the best that has emerged from that Department. We are not trying to justify the actions of the past, but to make some amends for what we have done. With zeal, patience and plodding, the Colonial Secretary is achieving his. objectives. His performances in office correspond to his promises when he was in Opposition. He has carried out his promises and has put them upon the Statute Book. Nothing in our whole colonial history is equal to what we have done during the past few years for the colonial people. We have written some splendid pages of colonial history as well as some sombre and dark pages, but this is one that will impress itself upon the Colonies and upon the nations of the world.
  Now I should like to say a word about Malaya. Whenever that name is mentioned, people immediately think of tin and rubber and of the profits that they make out of those commodities in the markets of the world. If we are to hold Malaya only for the tin, the rubber and the profits, it would be a very sordid basis, and we should lose the Colony in a very short time.
  Mr. Gallacher: It is the only reason that we are there.
  Mr. Awbery: We do not hold Malaya only for tin and rubber, but they are important and helpful to this country to get us dollars at the present time. We must not remain there only for that reason. There is a greater and higher responsibility upon this nation than to make profits out of tin and rubber. We have opportunities of service there to uplift the social condition of the people. Nature or fate has given into our hands a power which we have to use for the natives of our Colonies.
  Mr. Gallacher: May I ask the hon. Member whether it is not for the tin and the rubber that we are in Malaya? Did he ever, when the Tories were in power, hear that we were in Malaya to look after the interests of the natives?
  Mr. Awbery: The title of the report is "The Welfare of the People of the Colonies." The primary objective of the Colonial Secretary is to uplift the people of the Colonies. I am concerned about the spending of money on the Colonies. Are we spending enough? We are told that a number of young men come to this country to be trained in order to go back and train other social welfare workers in the Colonies. Are we spending enough money, or are we going to say later on that what we spent was too little and too late? Malaya is a three-in-one nation. The Malays form about 40 per cent. of it, the Chinese 40 per cent. and the Indians, Eurasians and others 20 per cent. Those three nations have to be bound together. There is at present an attempt by some of the Chinese to bring the Malays together with them. Many of the Chinese were born in Malaya and regard Malaya as their home. They are trying to bind together the Malays, the Eurasians, the Indians and the Chinese to work together for the good of Malaya.
  Mr. Walter Fletcher: Will the hon. Gentleman say what percentage of the Chinese in Malaya are Malayan-born?
  Mr. Awbery: I do not think we have any figures of the percentage of Chinese who come from China and the percentage born in Malaya. I know that the forbears of some of the Chinese in Malaya came there 400 years ago. Their descendants are still regarded as Chinese. Some of the Chinese who come there from China bring certain philosophies and ideologies with them and try to convert other people in Malaya.
  I also want to speak about the democratic election of the Assemblies in Singapore and the Malayan Federation. We must not persuade the people of this country that these Assemblies are democratically elected, because they are not. A small proportion in Singapore are elected on a democratic vote. I am not condemning the Colonial Secretary. This was started last year and it is a step in the right direction, but I want him to develop this so that presently all the
  1478
  Assemblies will be democratically elected. In the case of the Malayan Federation, all are appointed and not elected. I suggest that we can allow the people to elect a gradually increasing number until there is full democratic control. I understand that the Singapore Municipal Council had an election a month or two ago. That is another step in the direction of democratic control by the people.
  Another subject which I want to raise is education. There are schools for children on the plantations, but the system is not satisfactory. The planters are doing as much as they can to develop education, but the State must take control of elementary education and develop it right up to the university which will be built in Singapore. As regards social welfare, young men are coming here to be trained and mention has been made of what happens to some of them when they are in this country. Some have got into the clutches and control of undesirable people.
  There is room for great development in health arrangements and hospital treatment. The Colonial Secretary ought to have some regard for the forgotten people, the lepers. Just outside Kuala Lumpur, the capital of the Malayan Federation, there is a settlement of about 2,300 lepers. I asked the doctor there what we could do to help, and he replied that if he could be supplied with sulfa-tone tablets he could probably purge the place of leprosy. I hope the Secretary of State will consider that.
  With regard to factory inspection, went through several factories and saw the machinery, some of which was unguarded and in a filthy condition, with examination taking place only once a year. I think it is necessary to increase the number of factory inspectors and to improve legislation. Workmen's compensation is almost unknown as we understand it, and I ask the Secretary of State to give consideration to that matter. On the question of trade union advisers, we have a few men out there doing the best they can under difficult circumstances. There are probably half a dozen in a population of 5½ million. I say, send the right men out there to train these people and we will get the right kind of organisation.
  I close with this: nothing done in the past will equal what this Government

  1479
  have done for the colonial people during the past five years and I say to the Secretary of State, quite honestly and sincerely, "You have done magnificently. Carry on with your work. By your work for the colonial people you can blot out many of the things of the past which it is desirable that we should forget."
  8.41 p.m.
  Mr. Walter Fletcher: The warmth of enthusiasm which greeted the speech of the hon. Member for Central Bristol (Mr. Awbery) will, I fear, dwindle in the rather more cold and practical light which I hope to throw on matters in Malaya. I believe that the outstanding speech made from the benches opposite this afternoon, amongst some very good ones, was made by the hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. T. Reid), because it has at last dawned upon him, and I think upon many of his colleagues, that all the desirable things mentioned by the hon. Member for Central Bristol—education, roads, improvement in health services—will be possible only if the economic future of the Colonies will permit it.
  This Debate is taking place under the shadow of the two days we have devoted to the dollar crisis, and therefore it is important not to give full and free rein to what our hearts desire but to concentrate our minds on what is possible, or how we can make it more possible by a correct economic policy. I believe, therefore, that it will not be amiss if I devote the time at my disposal to studying the Malayan question, particularly in regard to tin and rubber which, for many years to come, in spite of what the hon. Member for Central Bristol has said, and even with the policy of the right hon. Gentleman, with which we all agree, of spreading away from those two main crops into others—at any rate, as long as the present dollar crisis lasts—must be the two main factors. Possibly, in examining them closely under the microscope, instead of taking the usual gallop upon one's hobby horse around the horizon, we may learn the lesson for other things, too.
  I will not deal with the document referred to this afternoon, but the one issued in May on the British Dependencies in the Far East, which is parallel in its use and value. I know that confession is good for the soul, but Governments,
  1480
  having no soul, do not go in for confession and, therefore, certain confessions which they might well have made in it have been omitted. I do not propose to go over, as we have done in previous Debates, the reasons for the recent troubles in Malaya because, fortunately, they are to a considerable extent passing away, but they have left behind them, on the wrong side of the balance, great financial burdens on Malaya, and they are the cause of the acute economic crisis which has overcome that country.
  We refer to Malaya all the time as being the dollar arsenal, but we take the dollars. Nevertheless, I am not one of those who wish to encourage among any community of Malaya any spirit that might be arising at the present moment that they can contract out of the general difficulties in which the sterling bloc of the Empire finds itself, on the rather narrow basis of saying that, because they produce the rubber and the tin and because they are the direct means of earning the dollars, they should be given a much more favoured-nation position than other Colonies.
  At any rate they have before them at the moment the example of the Dominions—a status which they themselves may reach one day—who, in an extremely self-sacrificing way, have come forward and said, "We in the sterling bloc stand or fall together." South Africa, producing diamonds, hides and skins and great quantities of gold, could put up a very good, narrow, selfish argument. Australia with its wool crop could do the same. They have all come together because they begin to understand—and Malaya understands, I think, or should understand—that here in the centre just now sterling has to be supported by the whole force of what there is inside the sterling bloc, and that means the British Empire. Actually, Malaya has not had a very bad deal about dollars. She has had, I think, more than the average allocation. The important point is what can she contribute, and what are the chances that she will contribute, in dollars over the next few months, when the crisis will become more acute?
  Reference was made by the hon. Member for Mid-Bedford (Mr. Lennox-Boyd) to the rubber industry, but I should like to develop it a good deal

  1481
  further and to mention some of the dangers into which it is running and which will affect other Colonial development schemes in years to come when they reach, as they will, in the ordinary curve of ups and downs, the same situation. The development of rubber—this was omitted from the hon. Member's speech—has become rather more a matter of the small native Asiatic producer than of the European estate owner, and in these days, when we talk of producers of rubber, an illusion seems to be prevalent.
  There is only one producer of rubber, and that is the man who taps the rubber tree with a knife and gets latex out of it. Everybody else, whether it be the European estate manager, the house which helped to finance and run the estate in between, or the collecting and packing station of native rubber or the shipper, everybody else between the tapper and the man who drives the motor car with rubber on its tyres, is an intermediary in one form or another. Therefore, in considering the rubber problem in Malaya, one has to bear in mind that there is an absolute, joint and equal interest between the native producer and the European estate manager. It is possible that rubber is running into a situation where new methods of production will have to be considered, where we shall test in the great open space, in real competition against the new form of synthetic rubber, what is the most economic method of production.
  The situation in rubber is undoubtedly this. Malaya has made a magnificent effort since the end of the war. The figures which have been published show that it has been the biggest individual dollar producer, for various reasons. First, because in the sellers' market the whole world wanted rubber and was willing to pay a price which, incidentally, never rose to the same level as the prices of commodities in the rest of the world. This fact has always been damped down to some extent. This damping down has been due to the main cause which worries the rubber producer, and which comprises two, or possibly three, things. The first is the appearance of synthetic rubber. For the first time synthetic rubber, cold rubber—it has no relation to the "cold" war; I must disappoint the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher)—
  Mr. Gallacher: It has a lot of relation to the "cold" war.
  Mr. Fletcher: The fish are rising tonight. Cold rubber is undoubtedly, for the first time, a really good and efficient substitute for raw rubber. The price at which it can be produced is unknown because at present it is being produced in factories which the American Government have put at the disposal of manufacturers. Factories were built during the war on a non-economic basis, and to some extent, therefore, it is being slightly subsidised. But the history of all synthetic products, from the days of indigo, with the harm it did to India, has always been that they improve in quality and diminish in price as time goes on. Therefore, the warning signal has been issued to rubber perfectly clearly.
  Then there is the competition from the Dutch East Indies. That great area, as we all hope, will fairly soon be pacified and a new form of government—let us hope, a really satisfactory and permanent one, with both Indonesian and Dutch elements in it, because both can contribute—will undoubtedly tend to produce more than it has produced in the disturbed conditions under which it has been working.
  There are certain other factors which hit heavily against rubber. These I must bring to the notice of the right hon. Gentleman, although he is not actually the culprit in this matter. The chief of these is the great attack there has been not only on rubber, but on a great many other things inside the sterling bloc, by the very unfair practice of what has been called the dollar leak in the sterling area. It has had a disastrous effect. It has had not only the effect of robbing the sterling area of dollars for wool from Australia, hides, skins and diamonds from South Africa, and rubber from Malaya; but it has been the main factor in breaking down the price structure of what we produce inside the sterling bloc—in the Empire—far faster than the price structure of commodities we have to buy in the gold and dollar area is breaking down.
  That is one of the main causes of disequilibrium working against us. It has been one of the main causes of making the gap as great as it has been and as great as I fear that it will continue

  1483
  to be. The decline in prices of our products which should have been sold in the dollar area by us has been forced for this reason. I will explain how it works. I will not give the names of any nations. A member of the non-sterling bloc obtains his sterling in the open markets of the world. There are dozens of them. Sterling is obtainable there at very much cheaper than the official rate. It is no use blinking that fact. The Treasury and everybody else admit it. With that sterling they go in a perfectly legitimate way and buy rubber from a dealer, a broker or a producer in Malaya. He, by putting his form perfectly correctly through the Exchange Control, gets a permit to ship the rubber to that particular European country. It is a perfectly legitimate transaction. But when the rubber gets to that European country it is immediately re-routed and shipped to America. Rubber has been sold in America at a price very much lower—taking the official rate of exchange as a basis—than it could be bought in the country of origin.
  For months and months, rubber and many other commodities have been selling more cheaply in America than they can be produced. Sometimes they have been as much as ½d. per lb. cheaper, which is a great deal. This continual drip, drip, drip, flowing from these illegitimate sources—sources which have transgressed arrangements made with His Majesty's 'Government—has gradually broken down the price structure. It has made it quite impossible for the legitimate flow of trade to go through channels where it can be properly controlled.
  The other day the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that he would produce some figures for which I asked, but he did not do so. If those figures had been produced they would have shown the position. During the last year or more, others and myself have been pointing this out to the Chancellor. If he took the manifests of ships arriving in America and examined the markings on the cargoes, that would be a practical way of seeing where the cargo came from and where it had been since it was despatched. If this leak was stopped, the Chancellor would save six or seven times the amount he is saving on the sugar cut, but at present it is flowing through his fingers. 'This matter simply must be tackled.
  1484
  If the price structure of rubber, which is today at a level which barely pays the cost of efficient production, goes very much further, then the new form of government which the Colonial Secretary has set up in Malaya—the new attempt to make a rapprochement in an atmosphere of goodwill which only exists when financial and economic considerations are working well—will be brought to nothing. If that is destroyed by the same process taking place in tin, to some extent, as in rubber, then the whole of what the Colonial Secretary has said about carrying on the policy initiated before of creating a new feeling in Malaya, a new Federation, will be brought to nothing.
  Mr. Harold Davies: Many of us on both sides of the Committee are interested in these dollar leakages. Can the hon. Gentleman suggest a practical way of stopping them in the international field? This ought not to be put at the door of the Colonial Office.
  Mr. Fletcher: I can suggest many practical ways. I have said that the blame is not at the door of the Colonial Office, though it is a direct concern of theirs even if they do not happen to be the Ministry affected in carrying out the remedy. There are many ways which I have put to the Treasury in which this could be stopped. The Colonial Office has taken one step. It has placed a strict embargo upon the shipment of rubber to Siam. Nevertheless, rubber has been flowing to Siam in about twice the quantity that it should. This is a most difficult problem. Pressure must be brought on the nations which transgress. But let the Secretary of State bear in mind that as long as the world's assessment of the value of sterling differs from the official rate—and it will continue to do so for some time until confidence is restored—there will be available in the world great quantities of unofficial sterling which can be used for this purpose.
  I believe that many things are being studied at the moment, and there was some kite-flying in one of the papers the other day as to whether some form of bulk selling of tin and rubber to America, in exchange for cotton and sugar, may not take place. I have an instinctive dislike for that sort of transaction, but in the situation with which we are dealing, with certain safeguards, the

  1485
  rubber producers and distributors would be the first to come along and assist. But the Secretary of State and the Committee must remember that rubber is a very different article with which to deal than some of the foodstuffs, particularly sugar, which have been mentioned. In these commodities, the fluctuations are to some extent foreseeable, but over a period of 21 years from 1910 to 1931 there was variation in the price of rubber from 13s. 6d. per lb. to 1½d. per lb. There is considerable room for errors of judgment there.
  We have to study in Malaya the importance of efficient production, and we also have to reinfuse into the whole rubber-producing industry—and this applies equally to tin—a new sense of confidence. The Malayan loan issued not many months ago, which was a Government loan, stood not so long ago—I do not know today's price—at six discount. That is within a few months of issue. For any loans to stand at six discount within a short time of being issued is an adequate sign of a dangerous lack of confidence.
  There are certain remedies which should be applied fairly soon. First and foremost, there is the very important question of a settlement of the war damage and war insurance claims of Malaya. We all know the history of this question—and it is referred to in this particular document—which is now just coming to the point of decision by the Legislative Council out there. I do not say that the Government have done everything which they should have done, but they have at least made an effort to produce a balanced scheme which will share the burden—although everybody will suffer, and nobody will be paid out in full—fairly evenly between all parts of the community.
  I should like to ask the Under-Secretary whether he is aware that there has appeared quite recently a new idea—though really it is not so very new—among certain sections of the community out there that they would like a little bit more, and that the other chap should get a little less. I believe that scheme was worked out by people sent out by the Colonial Office, and I happened to be in Malaya when they were there. They took the utmost pains to see every part of every community, and they reported back that, with a little extra effort
  1486
  by the Government, the scheme would produce exactly what they were trying to make it produce—sufficient rehabilitation for industry to reform itself, instead of the unease and lack of confidence which there is at the moment.
  We need a new surge forward in creating new industries, and that means that a great deal of expensive pioneer work has to be done. The Government, even with the Colonial Development Corporation, cannot do that. The suggestion was put forward today that there should be a partnership between private enterprise and the Government in order to help these Malayan people—and I am one of the 8,000 claimants. If out of the total of £150 million, about £55 million under this scheme is distributed fairly under the Government plan, it will probably be sufficient to bring about this surge forward again towards a new economy in Malaya. Tin is not so vulnerable as rubber, and is not in the same serious situation as is rubber at the moment. Modern science about which we very often talk in this Chamber, often produces violent reactions. Time and time again we find that long-term schemes which look admirable when they are started are knocked endwise by some new influence. During the war it was not only synthetic rubber, but new uses which took the place of certain materials.
  I now come to the point raised about the United States coming in as a partner in the development of the Empire. It is a very attractive suggestion, and one's first impulse towards it is favourable, but it may have certain unforeseen results which would not be palatable to the right hon. Gentleman or to anybody else, because, in nearly every part of the Colonies, there is today such a delicate balance in the political structure that it could very easily be upset. Singapore, for instance, is still separated from the rest of Malaya. The right hon. Gentleman has stood on the brink of the Johore Causeway and has been rather afraid of getting his feet wet for a very long time. He must try to join the head to the body in Malaya very soon, but he will find his problem infinitely more difficult if the entrepôt trade of Singapore declines. Singapore's natural function is that of distributor to the great East Indies. It was the place where most goods were collected from the whole area. But the

  1487
  Government are responsible for the decline of the entrepôt market in Singapore owing to the bilateral agreements they have been making with the Dutch and others.
  Unless the greatest care is exercised, what will happen? There are 700,000 Chinese in Singapore who think in their hearts that by some skilful manœuvre they have been cut off from the mainland and disfranchised. I am not saying that their view is right, but it exists, and if the situation in Singapore declines as rapidly as it is at present, what will happen? Those 700,000 Chinese will not go back to China at the moment; it is not a very tempting centre to which to return even for the worship of one's ancestors. What will probably happen is that they will sweep across the Causeway into the Federation. If we get a couple of hundred thousand Chinese doing what the squatters are doing to some extent in the Federation, they will upset the balance which is so precariously being maintained at a period when the new form of self-government is only just beginning to take shape. I think that the right hon. Gentleman, with his sincere desire to see the new political set-up in Malaya work, must realise that that would be a very dangerous thing to happen, and I hope he will pay attention to it.
  How are we to remove some of these things? First of all, by avoiding such mistakes as the Government made at Geneva, because the difficuty and the danger of the rubber situation arose from the grievous error made at Geneva which led to the passing of the Crawford and Schaffer Act and set going the whole of the over-production of synthetic rubber which has had such a harmful effect on the production of raw rubber. Secondly, let the Government settle the Malayan claims once and for all, and let us hear from the Under-Secretary of State, in winding up this Debate, a statement that the scheme which the Government have put forward for the settlement of Malayan claims is, as they have actually said in this document, the final offer, and that, subject to small alterations which may be necessary, it is not to be put seriously out of balance by the vociferous claims of one lot of claimants against the others. It was put forward as being subject to minor alteration. Though the
  1488
  elected councils there have new powers, nevertheless these losses were incurred when this was a Crown colony, and the main responsibility still rests on His Majesty's Government. They have realised that in the better offer that they have made.
  There is one small point in connection with that, and it is that on top of the claim which has been very badly treated., there is the denial claim of the Services My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Chelsea (Commander Noble) and I have put forward cases which show that when goods were taken during the war and signed for, the Services would come along and say that these were taken for purposes of denial, and, therefore, the claimant could not be paid. There is no appeal from this, and it is a gross travesty of justice that it should be allowed to continue. It is not a great point, but it is one which is causing widespread concern and upset.
  There are certain other things which might well have to be done. The first is to grasp this difficult question of the Federation and Singapore being brought together. There is being created now something which is bad for that part of the world—a Singapore mind and a Federation mind. There is no logical or economic reason for the separation of those particular areas. In fact, they are indivisable economically and in every other way. But if there are two governors—and I know the governors make a great effort to get on together—and two sets of people, as well as a different economy for each part, a great deal of unnecessary trouble is being created; and the production of rubber and tin to earn dollars will not happen by themselves.
  What is to be the positive policy? When the representatives of His Majesty's Government go in September to America—because this is mainly a dollar problem—let them, in contrast with what happened at Geneva, be perfectly well documented and know the whole of that which they did not know on that occasion. Let them realise that if they appeal to America to assist them in the right way, they will get a good response. The wrong way is to attack America for producing synthetic rubber. We benefited during the war from the almost miraculous way in which in a very short while synthetic rubber was produced. America cannot for

  1489
  strategic reasons allow herself to be put in the position of not having the resources for the manufacture of synthetic rubber. If she is attacked she needs to be ready, and what is in the end, from our point of view, very important is to remember that we shall get very much further if America is made to realise, as she is beginning to realise more clearly every day, that it is no use her upsetting the whole economy of the Far East and the sterling bloc, whether by dollar leakages, which do not help her much in the long run, or by keeping down the artificial price of an article which upsets the whole of the balance of the economy of this area and causes a widening of the dollar gap. If our representatives remember this, there is every hope of a successful outcome.
  Finally, there is no doubt about it that the practical experience of the way we in Malaya particularly are handling a difficult economic problem will be a classical example of whether progress inside the Colonial Empire is going to be possible in its present form. Therefore, while we hope to build a great superstructure in social services, we must remember that it depends in the long run on what economic progress we make.
  9.9 p.m.
  Mr. Harold Davies: In the brief interval that is left I should like to take up some of the points made by the hon. Member for Bury (Mr. W. Fletcher). We all listened with great interest to him because of his expert knowledge, but I should like to point out that when we are discussing this crisis in relation to the dollar situation, there are other factors which we take into account. Here is what Sir John Hay, Chairman of Guthrie and Company and a director of 17 rubber, tin and palm oil companies, said last June:
  "Our American friends' devotion to the system of private enterprise and free competition is not so unqualified as to prevent them departing from it when it serves their interests to do so. Synthetic rubber has been put under the shelter of protective legislation well beyond the reach of the cold, blasting winds of free competition."
  If rubber prices had—and this point has been made on both sides of the Committee—been higher immediately after the war instead of being, as they were, only 25 per cent. above pre-war prices when other commodities were almost 300 per cent. higher, I believe we should not have
  1490
  had this huge dollar gap problem that we are now experiencing. I believe that some kind of negotiations could have taken place with the United States over that issue, and I believe that that kind of negotiation could take place at present.
  There is another point. If, coupled with the expansion of the Indonesian rubber industry and the expansion in the whole of South-East Asia, a gradual development which I saw coming along in that part of tine world, we can, by planting a new type of rubber tree on one million acres instead of on three million acres, produce the same output of rubber, a social problem will eventually face the Colonial Office. What are we to do with that labour and how are we to meet the social and economic problem with which we shall be confronted if we can produce on a million acres what we formerly produced on three million acres?
  I remember asking some two years ago in the House whether a Royal Commission could be set up to investigate the economic situation in Malaya in order to try to get a balance of its industry. Too many of the eggs of Malaya are in the rubber and tin basket. I believe that there should be a balance of the economy of Malaya, and I am delighted to see that the Colonial Office are proceeding with experiments—I know it is only in a small way—in the production of cocoa on a small island off Singapore. I believe that when they have made certain that these cocoa trees are free from disease—Kew Gardens might take part in the experiment, as they did in the rubber experiment—there might be a possibility of the development of that industry.
  While the hon. Member for Bury was so well-informed about rubber, I do not think that he offered any concrete or practical approach to this problem of leakages of dollars or on how to cope with that situation so far as South-East Asia is concerned. I know that we are losing dollars over the Japanese trade agreement. It is difficult to deal with these matters in the time at my disposal and in this Debate, and it is a problem which should not be left in the hands of the Colonial Office. It should not be left merely in the hands of Britain. It is a problem which the world must face at the United Nations or at an international conference.

  1491
  The economy of South-East Asia will completely collapse unless we increase the rice allocations in that area. Burma, Siam and Indo-China are fairly well supplied with rice, but the rest of the rice area is not. I believe that the interim report of the Colonial Primary Products Committee, paragraph 217, on rice growing possibilities, should be implemented by our Government as far as possible. The Food and Agriculture Organisation state that in this area there will be a shortage of 3½ million tons of rice in the 1950 period. Because of that, I am delighted to see, in the Evans Report on British Guiana, that we are trying ultimately to extend the rice acreage and hope to get an extension to provide a surplus of 40,000 tons of rice in that area. One of the basic tasks in the economy of Malaya is to settle the rice issue. I believe that that matter—the shortage of food—plays a bigger part than anything else in the disturbances that are taking place there and is a bigger cause of them than the alleged banditry and Communism.
  So far as President Truman's fourth point is concerned, there are references to it in this report, which I have now no time to mention. Here I think we must take the warning of the hon. Member for Bury. We do not want to go into this without examining carefully the results of this kind of dollar investment all over the Colonies, and, therefore, there must be careful discussion before we have this investment. The time has now come or an examination into the disturbances, in Malaya. Many in this Committee, I know, do not agree with me on this, but I believe that we could come to some type of settlement if, instead of calling in the United Nations organisation, we persuaded one of the small nations of the world to take the responsibility of investigating them, so that the people of Malaya might see that we do not desire to exploit them.
  One of the greatest problems of the Colonies is that of population, and an intelligent method of birth control will one day have to be faced by the people in the lower food areas of the world.
  9.16 p.m.
  Mr. Oliver Stanley: Only a short time remains to me, and I am not, therefore, able to follow the hon.
  1492
  Member for Leek (Mr. Harold Davies) in the particular problems with which he has been dealing. I should, however, like to say that he, with my hon. Friend the Member for Bury (Mr. W. Fletcher), although they may disagree upon some details, did seem to show an extremely realistic approach to the great economic problems that are facing Malaya; and although, perhaps, some of the difficulties to which they referred are not wholly within the province of the Secretary of State for the Colonies, yet the effects of them must be causing him great concern.
  The chief impression left upon me by this Debate has been one of a considerable consensus of opinion in the Committee. I never thought to see an occasion when my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedford (Mr. Lennox-Boyd) and the hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Foot) would almost frisk together in a Debate. It was really the lion and the lamb lying down together, although I am not quite certain which of the two I would cast for the role of the lamb. Even the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Peart), when he found it necessary to introduce a little synthetic party heat into the Debate, in order to find it had to go back to 1921, and then to something which had to do with home agriculture.
  I am glad that there should be this community of feeling among the majority of people on both sides of the Committee. I know that in this Chamber we eschew references to one's own personal feelings, but I do feel most deeply upon this matter. I believe that about the most important thing for this country over the next 10 or 20 years will be the development of its relationships with its Colonial Empire, and I feel that about the most important element in its success or failure will be the maintenance of some unity of purpose between the various parties in the State. Whatever the line, whoever is right, I cannot conceive of success coming from a programme and an objective liable to be altered at intervals largely as a result of considerations which have really nothing to do with Colonial matters at all.
  I am not interested in who has been responsible for bringing about this closer proximity, whether it is that the right hon.

  1493
  Gentleman has moved far from his early Fabian theories, or whether it is that we on this side have moved far from earlier conceptions of Colonial relationship. The fact I am interested in is that we appear to have arrived, at any rate, at some community of purpose and some unity of purpose. That does not mean for one moment that we do not disagree with each other. It does not mean for one moment that whoever is in power will not be criticised by the other side, or that we shall not have differences as to tempo, administration, or detail. I hope and believe that it means now, and will continue to mean in the future, that on the general broad details of Colonial affairs, we are and shall remain united.
  Before I come to one or two of the broader points that I wish to raise I should like to ask one small detailed question. In the course of his speech the Colonial Secretary referred to the sudden death disease in the clove industry in Zanzibar, and I thought he gave the impression—he certainly did to me—that modern science had found a cure for this disease. I do not know whether the Under-Secretary could say with a little more precision what is the position. My own understanding was that no cure had been found; that the cause of the disease had been found but that no cure had been discovered, and that eradication still remains the only remedy. If this is so, then, as we know from West Africa, it will be dangerous to give the impression that there is an alternative. I should be glad if the Under-Secretary would deal with that point.
  The main emphasis of this Debate has been, quite rightly I think, upon the economic side, and the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, together with the Colonial Report, now gives a fair picture of the economic machinery for the future. It will fall, as I hoped it would and as I believe it should fall, into three parts: the Colonial Welfare and Development Act machinery, the machinery of the Government Corporations, and thirdly private enterprise. I believe all those things to be complementary to each other, and I do not believe that the work can be covered without all three of those things participating. I naturally have a greater personal interest in the Colonial welfare and development side, because I was re-
  1494
  sponsible, not for its introduction but at any rate for its increase. However, I recognise that, although I believe it will play and is playing the most valuable part in economic development, there are some sides that it cannot touch.
  Incidentally, on the Colonial Welfare and Development Act I should like to get more precisely from the Government what was meant by the right hon. Gentleman's statement that Parliament would soon have to consider the amendment of this Act. Up till recently all of us had been disappointed at the slowness with which the allocations of money under this Act had been translated into materials, work and progress. That, I am glad to, say, has in the last few months been remedied; the work is now proceeding at a much faster rate. When the right hon. Gentleman says—I think he almost said within the next few months—that this would have to be considered, does he mean that he has under consideration a new Act which will either extend the life of the Colonial Welfare and Development Act, or is intended to give more money? Once the statement has been made that what I gathered to be a major amendment might be necessary in the near future, I think that the Committee should be left under no doubt as to what that amendment is to be.
  As I was saying, I feel that there are parts of economic development which could not be covered by this machinery, which is devised essentially to meet the Government contribution to enterprise—the background which Government creates under which enterprise can flourish. I, therefore, welcome the setting up of these two Corporations, and I think Members on this side were sincere in their congratulations and good wishes for the success of these two bodies. Of one of them I will say nothing; we shall be saying something next week, and of the other I will say only this: we have had a chance of reading through the report, which goes up to the end of 1948. Reading it casually one might think it did not disclose very much, but I am not in the least disappointed with the progress they are able to report up to that date. I am glad they have approached this problem in a way quite different from the way in which it has been approached by the other Corporations.

  1495
  I believe that the slower approach at the beginning will turn out to be the faster in the long run. Colonial development is never fast; all kinds of problems which have never yet been experienced, particularly in connection with any large-scale agricultural development, turn up. I believe that time spent at the beginning in a certain amount of experimenting and running model operations, will be found to be time gained. We shall expect, in another 12 months, more concrete performance but, meanwhile, I think their report discloses the right outlook and progress.
  On this subject, I was extremely glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman's pronouncement about the place for, and, indeed, the need of, private enterprise in Colonial development. I firmly believe that it has a part to play—a major part. When the hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. T. Reid) talked about international help he was quite right. We cannot ourselves hear in the next few years the full cost of the capital development necessary in our Colonies. I believe that that international help will most likely be given in the form of private enterprise rather than in the form of State loans. I was glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman's welcome to private enterprise, and also to note his determination to see that conditions are such as to make private enterprise possible.
  On the economic side, I want to say a word or two on a subject which has occupied a considerable part of today's Debate—bulk buying in the Colonies. Ever since my time in the Colonial Office I have always realised that there might be, in certain cases, a need for this bulk buying. I agree with the hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Foot). Although I am in favour of Imperial Preference in the narrow term of the pure fiscal machinery, I do not believe that preferences can give to the Colonies the priorities they need in all cases. The particular case of sugar, which he quoted, is one in which preferences by themselves are probably the least effective. I am, therefore, in favour of this system in certain cases for the very good reason that I am against it outside the Colonial Empire. I am against it outside the Empire because I think it usually gives a hard deal to the consumer. Inside the
  1496
  Empire, it may well be that people in this country will voluntarily assume a deal bad for themselves in order to help, by that, the people in the Colonies for whom they are responsible.
  But when talking about bulk buying do not let us ignore the great dangers and difficulties which have to be faced in that policy. They have not had to be faced yet. The references which hon. Members opposite make to the success of bulk buying in the Colonies up to now ignore the fact that during a world boom a system of this kind is, of course, successful. But, as a matter of fact, bulk purchase in the Colonies, in a large number of cases, has consisted of buying produce not above world prices but under world prices. The cocoa, the oil seeds of West Africa, the cotton of Uganda, have been built up because the bulk purchasers from this country bought Colonial produce not above but below world prices. We sold at the world prices, and we were quite right in doing so, not to feather our own nest but in order to avoid the dangers of inflation in the Colonies.
  The whole test of the help we may give by long-term contracts at fixed prices in certain commodities is coming as and when prices fall, and that test has not yet come; or if it has come, it is in the particular instance to which the hon. Gentleman referred, of sugar in the West Indies or sugar in any other Colony in which sugar is a monoculture. I say frankly that I am not dealing with the one case which the hon. Gentleman mentioned in particular because I do not know enough about that commodity, but I firmly believe that there are cases where it is right for the people of this country voluntarily to assume a heavier burden in order to help the Colonies. Help given in that way through their normal economic machinery may be more valuable than the alternative help, just as expensive to us, which would have to be given through grants either as deficiency payments or under the Colonial Welfare and Development Act.
  My time will not permit me to deal with certain other points upon which I should like to touch. I should, therefore, like to say in conclusion that I wonder whether the people of the Colonies, by which I mean particularly those people who are educated and who are

  1497
  beginning more and more to take an interest in their own political and economic affairs, fully realise the difficulties that lie in front of them. I wonder whether we are not giving them much too easy an impression of the road that they have to follow. I am not always certain that all of us realise the difficulties that lie in front of us. I had that feeling strongly when the hon. Gentleman who temporarily shares with me the representation of Bristol, the hon. Member for Central Bristol (Mr. Awbery)—
  Mr. Awbery: Is the right hon. Gentleman going out next time, then?
  Mr. Stanley: I will back myself against that happening. What did the hon. Gentleman say about Malaya?—that we ought not to worry about the profits on rubber and tin because that was a sordid matter for this country to be worried about, and we ought to give the Colony more schools, hospitals and social services, and this and that. I would ask him how we are to give all those things unless somebody has to worry about the profits we make out of the produce of the country. Somehow or other we must try to bring home to the people the difficulties which face both them and us. It is no good their thinking that this country, however good and generous it is, can solve their problems and that somehow or other a Secretary of State for the Colonies or the British taxpayer can bring to them in a short time all the blessings of democracy and prosperity with little or no effort on their part. We cannot do so, and to pretend, and give them even the idea that it is possible, is to deceive them.
  The road to the goal towards which we have set out is long and hard. Success will depend not upon us but largely upon them, upon their willingness to face realities and make sacrifices, on their willingness to put all the effort and skill in their country into it. Only so can we hope to reach, and then not in a few years, the goal that we have set before us. Difficult as the task is, all of us on all sides of the House agree on its immense importance. It may well be the deciding factor in the continuance of this country, not only as a world Power but as a country which can offer to its people a respectable and decent standard of life. Therefore, whatever the difficulties, we are all determined to offer these
  1498
  people all the help we can, and more and more to take them into partnership with us in order that we may together reach a solution which will redound as much to our benefit as it will to theirs.
  9.36 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Rees-Williams): We have had an interesting and valuable Debate, and a Debate which has been remarkable for the harmony displayed on both sides. Except for small domestic disputes from Bristol and one or two other matters like that, we have had great harmony and a great consensus of opinion.
  What has been said by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol (Mr. Stanley), the hon. Member for Mid-Bedford (Mr. Lennox-Boyd) and many other hon. Gentlemen will be of great encouragement to the members of the Colonial Office and the Colonial staffs at home and overseas, as well as to the Ministers, officials and the many others who occupy some position in this great work. I want especially to pay tribute to the staff of the Colonial Office. In the last two or three years they have gone through a very difficult time. They have had to bear burdens and seek new methods which were not contemplated years ago. The economic drive which has taken place, the formation of the new Corporations and the many other activities which are novel in scope and in kind have imposed a great burden upon them. Those who think that civil servants have an easy life these days would have those views dispelled if they spent any time in the Colonial Office, because these officials have put in long hours and worked extraordinarily hard. We owe them a word of thanks for what they have done.
  I was very glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol, whose sincerity in these matters we all appreciate and realise, express thanks and appreciation to the Colonial Development Corporation. Last Friday the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Gammans) made an attack upon the Corporation, which I felt was quite unjustified. I was, therefore, glad to hear—
  Mr. Stanley: That was only on one point—a point which I hope they will rectify—namely, the way in which they show their accounts.
  Mr. Rees-Williams: Yes, but I thought the right hon. Gentleman put it in its proper perspective today. I felt that the hon. Member for Hornsey made an unjustifiable attack upon the Corporation.
  Mr. Gammans: Does the hon. Gentleman still say that I made an attack upon the Corporation, or is he prepared to admit that the only part of the work of the Corporation which I attacked was the way they keep their accounts?
  Mr. Rees-Williams: I should say that keeping and presenting the accounts is part of the work and the duties of the Corporation, and that if one attacks that one attacks the Corporation. I do not think we can distinguish between the two.
  There has been an enormous increase in interest in Colonial affairs, as is exemplified in this Debate and by the many thousands of people who have been through the Colonial Exhibition. I am glad to say that the sales of literature at the Exhibition, which will have a lasting effect by being handed around, are also remarkable and constitute a record for such an exhibition. Old soldiers will remember that it used to be said in the Army in the old days that the British Army had the best textbooks in the world but that they were the least read. At one time I thought the same thing applied to the Colonial Office books, papers and reports churned out year by year, but that does not apply today and the sales we have had recently are encouraging.
  We have to realise that in the Colonial Empire there are certain age-old enemies we have to attack, and many have been mentioned today. I was speaking some time ago to a film director on the possibility of making commercial films in the Colonies for showing in this country to give our people a better idea of the colonial territories. He said to me, "One colonial film is just like another because all you can show is that there is poverty, ignorance, disease and over-population and the necessary measures to overcome those problems. It is difficult to make anything new in the way of a colonial film." It is perfectly true that those main problems are present in most, if not all of the colonial territories—not the over-population but certainly the other factors—and the series of reports published recently gives an indication of how
  1500
  in these difficult circumstances today we intend to tackle this problem.
  There are one or two examples of the way in which we are tackling it which, in my view, have not had sufficient publicity in this country. As an instance of what one officer can do with a bit of initiative, and as an instance of how the age-old problem of soil erosion can be overcome, I would draw the attention of the Committee to a strip of desert in the Aden Protectorate at Abyan. There a young agricultural officer in 1940 noticed that rain was pouring away into the sea without being utilised or stored. Absolute desert has been turned into a market garden, and this year it is producing 3,000 tons of food, not as a result of any large scheme but because of the observation and efforts of one agricultural officer, helped by the Colonial Development and Welfare Fund.
  In 1951 the project is intended to produce 10,000 tons of food and a cotton crop to the value of £257,000 from 60,000 acres of land which was absolute desert a few years ago. The cost to the British taxpayer has been a grant of £20,000 in 1946 and a loan of £250,000 in 1948, both under the Colonial Development and Welfare Fund. Now we have more than 1,000 small farmers working this area where before there were a few Nomad Arabs riding across the land on camels. I instance that to show what can be done and is being done to tackle the great problem of soil erosion of the barren land which is prevalent in so many of the countries and which is being extended to East Africa, where we hope much the same results will follow.
  We have in all these Colonial territories certain psychological problems to meet. In the old days, before we went into these territories, the people lived a life which was undoubtedly brutal. Life was short and dangerous, but it had a certain amount of colour in it while it lasted. It certainly had a factor which is not present today, that everyone had a certain status in the community. It was only a very small pond but every man as he grew older, became a big fish in it. With the coming of Western civilisation both those factors have gone. I was talking only the other day to Mrs. Elspeth Huxley, who has been mentioned today, on this very problem. No one knows more about it than she does. I think

  1501
  that in "Red Strangers" Mrs. Huxley has written the finest book on native life ever to be written; and people much more competent than I to judge say the same thing.
  In some way we must overcome this difficulty, which is at the root of all the troubles we are meeting in the Colonial territories, namely, how we can restore to these people the colour which has been taken out of their lives and how we can give back to them the feeling that they are persons and that each of them is not merely one of a large number of quite indistinguishable units.
  I should like hon. Members to study our plans for Sarawak, which, as hon. Members know, is our latest Colony. We are trying as far as possible to maintain the old traditions and ways of life and at the same time to import into those ways of life the progressive measures we wish to see applied. First, we want to establish improved methods of agriculture and sanitation. We do not take people away from their own surroundings or destroy their existing systems. We have built a model longhouse to which people from the various longhouses—native villages—go for two years. In the longhouse they get exactly the same background as that to which they are accustomed and they learn how new methods can be applied to many of the old ways. Similarly, we do not take people dozens or hundreds of miles away from their homes to go to hospital. We have 18 mobile launch dispensaries which travel about and treat people on the spot, thus not breaking up their pattern of life or expecting them to paddle dozens of miles down rivers to a central hospital.
  The right hon. Member for West Bristol asked a question about the raising of the ceiling in the Colonial Development and Welfare Act. My right hon. Friend did not intend to imply exactly what the right hon. Member thought he implied. The point is that at present practically the whole of this fund has already been allocated. Thus, in a year or two's time, if this structure or machinery of colonial development and welfare is to continue, there will arise the question of a further fund from which fresh allocations can be made. The right hon. Gentleman, I am sure, appreciates this and realises that accordingly it may be necessary later to come again to Parliament.
  Mr. Stanley: Will the further fund overlap with the existing one?
  Mr. Rees-Williams: It may do so. When the time arrives we should have to come to Parliament and present the proposal. I assume that such a course was contemplated when the Act was passed and that it was not assumed that the original fund would be the final amount available for colonial development and welfare. There is no immediate intention of coming to Parliament to amend the Act, although that may be necessary in due course.
  The other point upon which the right hon. Gentleman asked me to elaborate was the question of the clove disease in Zanzibar. As he knows, the only certain method of killing the virus which causes the disease either in cloves or in cocoa is by cutting out the affected trees. Certain suggestions have been made, but none of them has proved effective. It is very important that it should go out from this Committee tonight that the only certain method of dealing with either swollen shoot or with the sudden death in cloves is by cutting out.
  The hon. Member for Mid-Bedford (Mr. Lennox-Boyd) asked several questions, which I will try to answer in the short time available. He asked about sugar in the West Indies, a point which was raised also by the hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Foot). At present the West Indies have a three years' contract for sugar, and their deputation which is now in this country is negotiating for a further period extending, they hope, to 10 years. I support what was said by the hon. Member for Devonport about that extraordinary article in the "Evening Standard." The fact is that the British Government are paying more than the Cuban price plus Imperial Preference for West Indian sugar. Therefore, to suggest that the way out of the difficulty would be to restore Imperial Preference is just nonsense. That means nothing. At present the West Indians actually get more than preference plus the Cuban price.
  I was also asked about internal security. With the "cold war" and the livening of political conscience in many countries since 1945, this has become an important question. We have gone into the organisation of the police forces and internal security arrangements in almost

  1503
  every Colony. The lessons that we have learned, and those that we are learning day by day in the "cold war" in Malaya are being studied, so far as they can be, in all Colonial territories. We have appointed a police adviser with the necessary staff. He has already paid a visit to Cyprus and to the four West African territories, and he is now in the Far East. The object is that he should visit all the territories in the Colonial Empire. He will consult with the Governors and the commissioners of police about how best they can tighten up their security arrangements. Most of the colonial police forces have been asked to improve their systems of wireless communication which, in most territories, were in a bad state. They have also been asked to improve their system of mobile police squads.
  I have been asked by several hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Mid-Bedford and the hon. Member for Bury (Mr. W. Fletcher) about the Malayan rubber situation especially as it is affected by synthetic rubber in America. I say this, and I know that I say it with the full support of my right hon. Friend: in our view there is no greater danger to the stability of the Far East than a bigger fall in the price of rubber than there has been already. We consider that the price of rubber is as low as it can go with safety. If it goes any lower, there will be very great danger in the Far East. It will be difficult to maintain any security in that vital area. I hope that those who are concerned with this matter will realise that I mean what I say in this respect.
  The hon. Member for Bury also asked about war damage. He knows very well that Mr. Bourdillon from our office went to Malaya and proposed what we thought—and I think what any impartial person would have thought—was a very reasonable scheme. That was put to the Malayan Government and we were most disappointed when the Select Committee did not accept it. We hope that they will reconsider the matter and accept the scheme which has been proposed. We hope that the various persons and firms who lost their money and goods at the time of the occupation will be compensated in the way in which Mr. Bourdillon suggested.
  Mr. W. Fletcher: Might I remind the hon. Gentleman that I asked him to say whether, in the view of the Government, that offer that they have made, subject to minor alterations is a final offer which they stand by?
  Mr. Rees-Williams: Yes, of course. We said that at the time.
  The hon. Member for Heywood and Radcliffe (Mr. Anthony Greenwood) asked about tuberculosis. He did not actually refer to my reply in the Debate which he mentioned, but, as he will see, we are by no means satisfied with the position. In the circumstances, with the resources available to us, we have done what we can. We intend to do a good deal more. The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) asked about soil erosion. We have taken, and are still taking, steps throughout the Colonial Territories to deal with this matter. The figures mentioned in pages 130–131 of the report related to new schemes. The existing schemes, such as those in Kenya and Uganda, will continue. The money has been voted in past years.
  During the past year, I am happy to say, and particularly in Kenya, that there has been a great response from the Africans on this question of soil erosion, and some of the work done by Africans under the supervision of the agricultural officers was mentioned only recently by Sir Philip Mitchell, the Governor. He told me, when he was over here on duty, that the response which they had made in the last year to this problem has been remarkable, and this is very encouraging to those of us who feel that this is one of the problems of the day.
  The hon. Member for the Scottish Universities (Sir J. Graham Kerr) asked me questions about fish. There has been a very interesting report by our adviser on fisheries, and I would recommend all hon. Members to read that report, which is available to them, because it shows the enormous amount of work that we are doing in fresh water and salt water fish and in fish farms.
  The hon. and gallant Member for Petersfield (General Sir G. Jeffreys) asked about ex-Service men in Jamaica. We would like to do everything we could for ex-Service men, whether of the First World War or the second, but the question today is one primarily for the

  1505
  Jamaican Government. They have got a very large measure of self-government in Jamaica, and it is primarily their responsibility. I have no doubt that members of the Jamaican Government will read the report of this Debate and will be suitably impressed by the very strong case which was put up by the hon. and gallant Gentleman.
  Sir G. Jeffreys: May I ask the Under-Secretary one question? Will not the Government impress upon the Government of Jamaica that it is their duty to deal seriously with the matter, and to publish the report of their own committee?
  Mr. Rees-Williams: We will indicate to them the very strong case which the hon. and gallant Gentleman has made. I cannot promise what they will do.
  The hon. Member for Eddisbury (Sir G. Barlow) charged Malaya with taking too many dollars. The hon. Member knows that there is now a temporary stop order in force, and he must remember two factors. I am not going into the question whether Malaya takes too many dolars or not. The first factor is Singapore's entrepôt trade, which is very important, and the second is that the Malayans have to buy rice from outside and over the price of which they have no control at all. It is necessary for them to purchase 70 per cent. of their consumption from other countries. When considering how many dollars the Malayans spend, we must take those two factors into account. I have been asked questions about rice in Malaya and I have mentioned previously that we have a very big scheme for additional acreage of rice both in Malaya and Borneo.
  There is nothing more I can say at the moment, but I do assure the many hon. Members who have spoken and whose questions I have not been able to answer that their points will be considered most carefully, and if by no other way I will give them an answer to their questions in writing.
  Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
  Put and agreed to.—[Mr. Snow.]
  Committee report Progress; to sit again Tomorrow.

  NATIONAL INSURANCE BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  10.0 p.m.
  The Minister of National Insurance (Mr. James Griffiths): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time."
  It was always the intention, from the days of the Beveridge Report, that the contribution conditions for death grant should be relatively easy ones to fulfil so that the grant would ordinarily be payable without question on the death of a person insured under the new Insurance Act or of a member of his or her immediate family. The contribution conditions set out in the Third Schedule to the 1946 Act were framed with this general consideration in mind. There are two contribution conditions which have to be satisfied. The first is that 26 contributions have actually been paid on the insurance on which the grant is claimed; the second condition can be satisfied in one of two ways, either by having at least 45 contributions paid or credited on the last insurance card or, if this fails, an average of 45 such contributions over the period of insurance under the new Act.
  This second condition is not a difficult one to satisfy; it allows of payment of full grant despite the fact that seven or perhaps eight weeks are completely unaccounted for both during the year before death and also on the average of the whole period of new scheme insurance. Further, we have made provision that, even where these relatively simple tests fail, a rather smaller grant may still be payable on a reduced life average so that, for example, half the ordinary grant will still be payable where only a quarter of the insurance life is accounted for by stamps or credits.
  The Bill now before the House does not propose to alter this second condition in any way, and what I have said about it is merely for the purpose of making clearer the effect of the proposed change in the first contribution condition. The first condition is at present that 26 contributions shall have been paid under the new scheme since 5th July, 1948. In the long run this condition will not debar anyone who has become established in

  1507
  the National Insurance scheme from full cover for purposes of the death grant.
  It has, however, become apparent that there will, at the start, be appreciable numbers of persons otherwise fully covered by insurance under the new scheme on whose death, or on the death of whose dependants, no grant will be payable. This is because 26 contributions under the new scheme have not yet actually been paid on their insurance despite the fact that they are in the new scheme and fully complying with its provisions. The main classes concerned of those for whom this Bill is intended to provide a cover are, first, widows whose husbands died before the new Act or before they had paid the necessary 26 contributions under it and who are qualified for widowed mother's allowance or widow's pension under the new scheme; and, secondly, men and women who have been receiving benefit while sick or unemployed for a long time, and who also will not have paid 26 contributions since 5th July last year.
  Both these classes, while receiving benefits, are treated as insured under the new scheme and are credited with contributions under it because, of course, while receiving its benefits they do not pay contributions but receive credits for each week they are entitled to receive benefits. People in these classes may not therefore actually yet have paid 26 contributions under the new scheme. Many of them probably will do so sooner or later and would then be fully covered for this new benefit as well as for the other benefits, but meanwhile they or one of the family covered by their insurance may die and be deprived of benefit because of this initial contribution condition. This Bill enables contributions credited as well as contributions paid to count for the initial contribution test for the death grant. It will fill a gap which I am sure the House will agree ought to be filled in the insurance of people who stand particularly in need of the complete cover of the National Insurance Act.
  There is a much smaller, but nevertheless unfortunate gap in the provisions in regard to the death grant cover which the Amendment now proposed will also close. It arises in respect of young people continuing with their education or in the first few months of their employ-
  1508
  ment. So long as a child is within the scope of the Family Allowances Act and its provisions it is covered for death grant on either the father's or mother's, National Insurance. A child will, however, no longer be covered in this way after 31st July following his or her 16th birthday, even though schooling may be continued beyond that date. Under the National Insurance Act we credit such children with contributions to their 18th birthday so that when they ultimately enter the scheme as contributors they will be able to make a good start.
  The Bill will enable contributions credited in this way for these children to count on a claim for death grant in the rare event of the child dying before he or she has actually paid 26 contributions. A slightly different problem arises where a child starts work at or shortly after the ordinary school leaving age. In some cases title to family allowances in respect of the child would continue; for example, where he is an apprentice, but in many cases it will not, and in such cases there will, under the Act as it stands, be a gap of six months in the child's death grant cover.
  Under the general arrangements for crediting contributions for National Insurance purposes it is the long-established practice to give what are known as pre-entry credits on first entry into insurance in order to ensure that as soon as the necessary qualifying contributions for a particular benefit have been paid, that benefit can be paid at the full rate despite the fact that insurance commenced after the beginning of the contribution card which would ordinarily settle the rate of benefit. The revised first contribution condition now proposed in this Bill would enable me to give such pre-entry credits in appropriate cases to bridge the gap to which I have referred. The number of cases in which this power would have to be used would, of course, be very small, but I am sure the House will agree that we ought to provide this cover.
  It is estimated that at the moment more than 500,000 people are without the death grant cover which the change in the first contribution condition proposed to be made by this Bill would give them. This figure includes not only insured persons but their families, because, as the House

  1509
  will know, death grants are for members of the family on the insurance of father or mother. The numbers of such persons is half a million now, but it will drop steadily as and when they secure cover by paying the 26 contributions now required, so that while the cost falling on the Insurance Fund from this change may initially be of the order of £200,000 a year, it will ultimately become quite nominal. As is explained in the Financial Memorandum accompanying the Bill, this money is already provided in the finances of the scheme so that no additional burden will be placed on contributors or the Exchequer. This is the benefit which we wish to make available to these people. I hope the House will agree that it was worth while producing this small Bill to give this particular benefit to people who perhaps need it more than anyone else. I hope hon. Members will be disposed to give the Bill a unanimous Second Reading.
  10.9 p.m.
  Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: We have no objection to the Second Reading of this Bill. In fact, when it was brought to our notice by the Minister that this gap existed and when he sought our agreement to introduce legislation to close it even at such a late stage of the Session, we made no demur whatever. I do not think any of my hon. Friends on this side of the House will make any objection to the proposal which the Minister brings forward. It is an oversight which this House can remedy by legislation. In the circumstances, the House, as always, will be most willing to make sure that the intentions of the original legislation are carried out, and benefits given to those who desire to have them. Accordingly, they have no objection to the Second Reading of this Bill.
  Committed to a Committee of the whole House for Tomorrow.—[Mr. Popplewell.]

  HEALTH SERVICE (STAFF PENSIONS)
  10.10 p.m.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Blenkinsop): I beg to move,
  "That the Draft National Health Service (Superannuation) (Amendment) Regulations, 1949, a copy of which was laid before this House on 4th July, be approved."
  These regulations are highly technical amendments to a complicated superannuation scheme. In a large measure they clear up minor difficulties which have shown themselves in the first year's working of the superannuation scheme for the staff of the National Health Service. In some cases they make changes to bring those regulations into line with other similar superannuation schemes. They have been circulated to the various staff organisations and have aroused no comment, and we understand that they are fully in agreement with them. Indeed, in some cases these proposals stem from suggestions made by the staff associations themselves. In many cases they improve matters for those participating in the scheme.
  Perhaps the main provision is the one under Regulation 10 which is designed to encourage those who have already retired on pension, or are eligible to do so, to continue in employment for up to a further five years and thus earn an increased pension when they finally retire. This position is similar to that under the National Insurance Scheme. It is obviously desirable that these changes should be made where experience of the working of the scheme proves that they are necessary. As these amendments are generally agreeable to those concerned, I hope that the House will not be detained by detailed consideration of them.
  10.13 p.m.
  Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: It is quite true, as the Parliamentary Secretary has said, that these are highly technical matters, but I think that the House will need to devote a little longer time to their consideration than he seemed to suggest was desirable. It is true that, as the right hon. Gentleman said, the regulations are extremely complex, but although they have been circulated to the various bodies concerned

  1511
  the very fact of these further regulations having been brought forward indicates that it is not always possible at a single attempt to deal with the whole subject to the complete satisfaction of all concerned. This is the second attempt and it may be that further amendments will be necessary in this immense volume of regulations to which these are amendments.
  The original regulations consisted of 87 pages and there are now more than 100 pages of them dealing with this subject. It is true that these new regulations have been circulated and will no doubt be discussed in the appropriate journals, but it is also true that everybody does not always read all the entries in the appropriate journals. For example, not every doctor reads through the whole of the "British Medical Journal" every week, desirable as it might be that he should do so. Unless one reads and applies oneself closely to the technical exposition of the many regulations brought forward, it is always possible that something, to use a colloquialism, "drops down the crack."
  These regulations cover a large number of persons. It was estimated in July, 1948, that the superannuation scheme covered 300,000 persons. This scheme obviously covers more people. It would be desirable for the Minister to indicate, if he can, how many more people are covered by the scheme as now set forth, what the actual increase is and what are the reasons for the increase over and above the original estimate. It would help us to have some idea of a subject about which the House has always been curious, and about which, so far, it has not been able to have very much information—the actual size of the administrative staffs concerned. It covers, I think, the schemes of the employees of the regional boards, covers the employees of medical bodies and treating hospitals and executive councils, and other bodies set up under the Act; and I am informed that it covers medical practitioners and dental practitioners, though not ophthalmic practitioners or chemists. It will be seen that these regulations are of a very wide sweep indeed, and that they cover very, very large sums of money. I will come to that in a moment.
  1512
  There are certain technical points which, as the Minister said, are desirable, such as the point in Regulation 10, in which employees are encouraged to continue in employment up to 10 years beyond the possible retiring age, thereby earning a higher rate. I should like to ask the hon. Gentleman if it also covers those who return to the service, and what rebates for allowances are granted to those who have been out of the service for a longer or shorter period. It would obviously be very desirable, if possible, that people should be attracted back into the service, for the strain on the service is very great just now, and one of the simplest of all ways of dealing with it is to recruit from those who have been already fully trained in one branch or another, and who are still capable of giving many years of good service.
  There is, I understand, an important regulation, No. 6, which enables the Minister, where a person dies as a direct result of an injury sustained or of a disease contracted, to pay to his widow a gratuity, taking the circumstances of the case into account. Previously, the payment would be made only if a person were incapacitated, not if a person died. That is how I read the matter, but, perhaps, the Minister could inform me if this reading is correct. I think it is correct, and, if so, it is an example of an obvious gap in the drawing up of the original regulations, which is quite properly being corrected now.
  The cost, however, is one of the points upon which the Minister did not touch—the size of the figures with which we are now dealing; and it is worth while for the House to take note of the very great scale of the figures which we are now considering. The estimated gross total for the service this year was some £352 million, against which there were appropriations in aid amounting to £92,750,000, of which the largest sum is the contributions paid in the insurance which, as the House knows—though it is not always recognised by the country—is only a small fraction of the cost of the scheme—one-ninth; but in a scheme of this size even a ninth amounts to a substantial sum.
  Secondly, there is this insurance contribution of 6 per cent. which is paid by the contributors towards the cost of

  1513
  the superannuation scheme. The employee pays 6 per cent. and the employer 8 per cent., except the manual workers, in whose case these contributions are 5 per cent. and 6 per cent., respectively. This 6 per cent. amounts to very substantial sums. These appropriations in aid last year were estimated at £44 million for England and Wales. They rose to £62 million when the estimates were completed. That is an increase of about £20 million, and as far as I have been able to calculate there accrued to the Exchequer through these superannuation benefits £30,694,000 for England and Wales.
  Now these are very considerable sums, which accrue at the commencement of the scheme, when of course not very much is being paid out. A run-off will take place later, but these moneys are going into the reserves of the scheme, and owing to our system of accounting they appear as appropriations in aid and therefore lessen the apparent size of the charge on the scheme in the initial stages, although it will be clear to the House that when the liabilities begin to appear at a later stage of the scheme this apparent lessening will be diminished and the full weight of the scheme will appear.
  The sum of £30,694,000, which is the sum affected by the amendment it is sought to make tonight, is very substantial, because I understand that the only payment out just now under the superannuation regulations is the sum of just under £2 million for England and Wales, so that, as far as I can calculate, the Exchequer has at the moment a temporary surplus of something over £30 million, which in the course of the years will run off as the liabilities begin to accrue. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary could inform us whether these figures which I have been able to extract from a study of what, he will agree, is a complicated and intricate scheme, are more or less correct. Perhaps he could also say something about the two main points in the regulations; that is to say, the continuance or recall to service under the scheme, and the payment of a grant for the death of somebody incapacitated or injured during service under the scheme.
  Otherwise the regulations in themselves are, I think, a stage in the inevitable tidying up process which is going on as this great scheme begins to be run in. It will
  1514
  be seen from the very cursory examination which I have been able to give to it, that if my figures are correct the difference between the first and the final estimates is very considerable, and that the sums we are handling tonight are very great indeed. If the Parliamentary Secretary could give us some further information on that, and also deal with the point I raised at the beginning and tell us the numbers first budgeted for and the numbers now being budgeted for, I think the House would feel disposed to give him the regulations.
  10.23 p.m.
  Mrs. Braddock: Do these regulations cover employees of hospital services throughout the country who were transferred to the new service, and who had standing to their credit with local authorities, not superannuation payments but accumulated gratuities which the hospital service would pay to them when they retired? In Liverpool we are at the moment having difficulty with people who were employed by the hospitals of the local authority, who are not superannuated, but to whose credit the local authority put £7 10s. a year. That amount would have been paid to those people on retirement, either at the age of 65 or when they were compelled to retire because they were unfit to carry on. They have not yet been paid any of the gratuity either from the local authority or from the new Health Service, which has not undertaken to pay the amount. The local authority would have paid these employees had their remained with the local authority, and a number of these people are old enough to have to retire. The regulations are very complicated, and I should like to know whether they cover the case I have mentioned.
  10.26 p.m.
  Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth: There are one or two points I should like to put to the Parliamentary Secretary in connection with these regulations. By Regulation 10 it is proposed to add certain new regulations to those originally approved, and the whole of these are entitled "Re-employment of pensioner by employing authority." I tried to decipher the meaning of these words, but did not find it easy. I assume, however, that they would cover the case of someone who had left the service and had come back into it, after two or three years' retirement, for a

  1515
  special reason. An example would be what might happen in the case of a national emergency, when it might be necessary to call back a number of retired officers for the duration of that emergency.
  The hon Gentleman described the regulations as merely covering the case of officers continuing in employment beyond the retiring period. He said this was analogous to the case of the ordinary person continuing work after the age of 65, and so earning a larger pension under the National Insurance scheme. I am not certain whether he meant thereby to exclude the case of the person who comes back; we should have an assurance that if there is a gap it will be covered by the regulations. The hon. Gentleman may be aware that in the case of the Armed Services people retire at a much earlier age than under the National Health Service. During the war they came back in large numbers, and it was difficult to deal with someone who was eligible for both pension and pay.
  As I understand it, Regulation 16 (c) is applicable to specialists. Regulation 16 (c) of the original regulations enabled general practitioners within the service to choose, if they pleased to continue with their privately arranged insurance scheme, and to obtain benefit from the employing authority equal to the amount that the executive council would have had to put aside for their benefit if they had come within this scheme. I think that the House will welcome the proposal to include specialists. I have no particular point to raise on that. But under certain of the regulations there is a particular class of case which has only obtained notice by reason of the National Service (Amendment) Bill now passing through the House. I understand that under the original arrangements doctors who wished to continue their own insurance schemes had to give notice within three months of the appointed day in the original Act.
  Under this new Bill there will be a number of general practitioners who may come into the Act at some future appointed day, and who may have insurance schemes which they will wish to continue after the new appointed day, I am not certain that this class has not fallen between the two regulations. They are not specialists, they are not covered here, and are not within the scheme on
  1516
  the original appointed day. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary may be able to give an assurance that I am wrong, and that this class is covered. If it is not, I am afraid I have already indicated to him a new flaw which will mean certain new regulations in the near future.
  There is only a further small matter about which I wish to ask the Parliamentary Secretary a question. That is about the chaplains. They are covered by one of these regulations which provides that chaplains who have been eligible for pension in an outside scheme, when they come into this scheme, may be eligible under the scheme. It is noticeable that this only refers to English chaplains. There is no corresponding provision to cover Scottish chaplains. Can the Parliamentary Secretary say why that is so?
  10.32 p.m.
  Mr. Blenkinsop: We have had a series of detailed points which have been very properly raised on these regulations. I should point out that these amending regulations do not extend the scope of the scheme, so that they do not bring in further groups, with the exception of a small number of chaplains who may now come within it, and who were previously excluded. It is true that they do cover, broadly, some 300,000 persons, as the original regulations did. They are amending regulations which, in many cases, make the provisions more acceptable to those concerned; but they do not, in fact, involve much in the way of extra expense.
  I was asked a series of questions by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman. First, he raised the question of the period of extra service which will count for pension, and whether that covered also those who would return into the scheme after a short break of service. It does, of course, cover that particular category. The hon. Member who supported the right hon. and gallant Gentleman also raised this point. We are not only providing for those who continue for an extra five years under the scheme, or for a shorter period, an increased pension and increased superannuation benefit when they return, but we are providing similarly for those who return into the service after a break, or who come into the service after leaving some other superannuated service which they may have had in another form of employment. The period is five years.

  1517
  It is true that Regulation 6 does now bring our injury provisions into line with the Civil Service provisions. We previously followed the local government provisions, where there is a similar hiatus. If a person in benefit had died from an injury while in the service, without being in injury benefit for any period, then his widow would not have received any grant. Under these amended proposals she will be able to receive that grant, as is provided in the Civil Service scheme.
  The right hon. and gallant Gentleman made reference to the large sums involved in the regulations generally. I must say again, on that point, that there is no change to the original proposals put before the House some time ago. We are here discussing amending regulations, and any changes which they may bring, rather than the original regulations. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Exchange (Mrs. Braddock) referred to the question of transferred officers, and particularly the position in her own City of Liverpool. They, too, are covered by the 1947 regulations, and gratuities are covered by Regulation 25. I will, however, look into the position in Liverpool in order to make quite sure that there is no gap, but so far as I am aware, they are all fully covered.
  The hon. Member opposite for South Hendon (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth) raised the question of whether we have covered those who fall back into service after a gap. They are covered in Regulation 10, to which he himself referred. He also raised the point of the option given to part-time specialists to contract out. The provision in Regulation 16 (c) was made to meet a point which was raised by the British Medical Association. Practitioners coming in after the appointed day are not covered. It was a special concession, and I doubt if it could be extended. Regarding the point raised by the hon. Member about chaplains, there will be separate Scottish regulations dealing with the Scottish people; but there will be very few cases arising in this class.
  I hope that with this explanation of the points which have been raised tonight, the House will be prepared to approve this Motion. In matters of this kind, as we get experience of the working of the scheme, it will obviously be necessary to consider further Amendments from
  1518
  time to time to the regulations. The House will agree that we have had comparatively short experience, and we do not deny that there may still be points worthy of consideration as our experience extends. On our guarantee to re-examine the matter, after we have had more experience, I hope that the House will give these amending Regulations their approval.
  Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I can only speak again by leave of the House. I should like to say that we are interested in the Parliamentary Secretary's explanation, and also in his willingness to go farther into these regulations, if necessary. I should, at the same time, like to say that I sympathise with the hon. Member for the Liverpool, Exchange (Mrs. Braddock), who, when asking if certain officers were covered, was referred to Regulation 25. May I remind the House that this states:
  "In regulations 4 (1) and 9 (2), the proviso to regulation 11 (1) and regulations 13 (1) and 17, otherwise than in their application to practitioners, references to pensionable age shall be construed as references to an age greater by five years than pensionable age or, in the case of a person who before attaining such greater age has completed forty-five years contributing service or forty-five years contributing and non-contributing service, the noncontributing service being reckoned at half its actual length, his age at the date on which he completed such service or if that age is less than pensionable age then pensionable age."
  I take it that the person who has spent many years in the service of a local authority in a subordinate position, might well be in an even greater difficulty in trying to interpret these remarks than a Member of this House. If I were subjected to a cross-examination on the meaning of this regulation, I am quite certain that I should not pass with full marks. I have not read the second, third or fourth paragraphs. Paragraph (4), for instance, states:
  "In regulations 6, 9 (2), 10, 11, 30 (4) and 38 (3). there shall be substituted for the word 'forty' wherever it occurs the word 'forty-five.'"
  Or, for instance, paragraph (5):
  "(5) This regulation shall not apply in relation to any person to whom Part III or Part IV of the principal regulations applies, or to any person who is or was over pensionable age on the date on which he first becomes or became an officer not being a person who before becoming an officer was entitled to a pension or injury allowance payable out of public funds, otherwise than under the National Insurance

  1519
  Acts, 1946, or who, apart from this regulation, might become entitled to a pension under the principal regulations."
  It will be seen that the clarification by subsequent paragraphs is, perhaps, not fully complete and, therefore, I trust that the Parliamentary Secretary's assurance that the hon. Lady's question was covered by this regulation will be borne out by subsequent facts. For my own part, I would not be able to pronounce upon it, one way or the other, from the cursory reading which I have been able to give it.
  The Minister made a further reference to a point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for South Hendon (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth) as to the position of medical practitioners who would come under the scheme at a second appointed day by virtue of legislation now passing through the House, and he indicated that he feared it might not be possible for them to be covered by these regulations. I trust that the Minister will have a look at the Bill which is now before the House to see whether it is not possible to bring in such practitioners in the subsequent stages of that legislation. I think it would be the strong desire of hon. Members on this side of the House that those practitioners should be so brought in, and I should have thought that the legislation passing through the House would be a very suitable opportunity for them to be brought in.
  Apart from that, as I say, on this occasion the House will have to cast itself to some extent upon the broad bosom of the Parliamentary Secretary and the still broader bosom of the Minister, and pray that their admirable intentions are being borne out in the somewhat complicated language which the House has to consider. With the pledge from the Parliamentary Secretary that this is not the final occasion upon which books are to be closed and no further Amendments introduced, we on this side of the House will be willing tonight to approve these regulations.
  Queston put, and agreed to.
  Resolved:
  "That the Draft National Health Service (Superannuation) (Amendment) Regulations, 1949, a copy of which was laid before this House on 4th July, be approved."

  ARGENTINE RAILWAYS (PENSIONERS)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Popplewell.]
  10.44 p.m.
  Mr. J. L. Williams: The matter I wish to bring before the House tonight concerns 300 to 400 persons in this country who were formerly employed on the railways in Argentina or are the widows of such railwaymen and normally in receipt of a pension in respect of such employment. In February of this year, when the Argentine Government prohibited all remittances from that country, payment of these pensions ceased and the pensioners were placed in a very serious position, especially having regard to the fact that, due to years of absence from this country, the majority of them would not be qualified under any State pensions scheme.
  Last April I asked a Question in this House about the non-payment of these pensions and, later, I had correspondence with the Foreign Office. I much appreciate the readiness with which my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs has provided all available information concerning this matter. Continued delay in the resumption of payments, however, compels me to raise it again.
  To give an idea of the nature of this problem, I shall quote from a letter I received last March from a constituent of mine, Mrs. Elizabeth M. Clarke of 17, Pitt Street, Glasgow. She writes as follows:
  "I am in receipt of a small pension in respect of my husband's employment with the Buenos Aires and Pacific Railway Company. It seems there are now going to be difficulties over the payments of pensions to those living here. I am a widow and have received a pension almost 11 years now. I came from the Argentine two-and-a-half years ago and received my pension regularly until recently … I had to pay £5 14s. for a power of attorney to get my pension. I had to send the money in February last to a firm of notaries public in the City of London [name and address given]. After sending that money I had to pay 5s. 8d. for a survival certificate which has to be sent to the Argentine every three months through the Argentine Consul in London. … This is the first I have had to send. … My pension is less than 20s. a week and it is all I have to depend on. Last payment I received was in February last."

  1521
  Some time last March these pensioners, as some informed me, received news that payments would be resumed soon within modified limits. The remittances were to be allowed up to a certain point. The figure given might seem liberal, but the question of arrears came in as well as the cost of living bonus allowed from 1st January last which still remains unpaid, and not one penny has yet been paid to these people in the last five months.
  As a representative of these pensioners has stated:
  "Whilst permission has been given for the remission up to 250 pesos per month for each pensioner, this money is not forthcoming … These pensions are being put to various expenses most of which mean payments to the Argentine Government representatives here, although no money is being received from that country to meet these demands … The latest ruling is that all pensioners here must submit a print of their right thumb on a form supplied by the Argentine pension authorities. This has to accompany a duly authenticated signature and the whole has to go to the Argentine Consul for his legislation. He will no doubt charge a fee, though he has been written to on this matter, but no reply has been received to date."
  I appreciate that the payment of these pensioners is the responsibility of another Government and that His Majesty's Government cannot answer for the intentions of another Government. I also understand that these and other payments were involved in the recent meat negotiations with the Argentine and that it was hoped to see a resumption of such essential payments at a fairly early date. When it was learnt that sterling remittances which have remained blocked in Buenos Aires as a result of exchange difficulties would be released, the pensioners began to ask a few questions. They ask how soon payments are likely to be resumed. Will arrears be paid en bloc? Will all future pensions be paid in full?
  It has been asked by some of these pensioners whether, as a temporary measure, it will be possible for money collected for the firm holding the power of attorney, to be handed to the British Embassy in Buenos Aires and an equivalent sterling payment made by His Majesty's Treasury to the London bank which has been handling these payments. In conclusion, I can only plead with my
  1522
  hon. Friend that he, and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will give this matter further attention so that payment of these pensions may be resumed at an early date.
  10.51 p.m.
  Mr. William Teeling: I have a number of constituents interested in this pension question. They have come to see me in the past, and I have tried to link this up with another question which I have asked frequently in the House, namely, what was going to happen to the Buenos Aires Transport Corporation and the payment of their funds. Therefore, I have not pressed the pensions question, because I thought it seemed to be involved in the same issue. When we read the White Paper, we see the pensions problem is very definitely being brought into the consideration of this matter.
  All I would like to ask tonight is for the hon. Gentleman to assure us that, since the Treaty has been signed, we have not, so to speak, in Buenos Aires, sat back. I am fully aware that in the Argentine and South America there are delays and that people take a long time over this. I also know, in this country even, we have too many people who can deal with these foreign trade issues and problems, and therefore, we can only deal with one at a time. Therefore, we must not press too hard for a too sudden decision to be made.
  It was said that, as soon as the Treaty had been signed, the question of these pensions and also the question of the other matters of Buenos Aires Transport and so on would be dealt with. As far as we know, nothing very much has happened. We must not complain about that, because it is only a fortnight or so since the Treaty was signed; but I should like some assurance from the hon. Gentleman that our Embassy has not, so to speak, entirely gone on holiday in regard to the matter, but are pressing on and going to deal with all these issues.
  There are some of these wretched people who feel they have lost all and who have been hoping, indeed, are hoping—not necessarily against hope, but not with an optimistic possibility—to be repaid, or that something is to be done for them in the near future. They should not feel that because a Treaty has been signed, we are now not going to press on

  1523
  with the other issues. There is a general feeling of happiness, in a sense, as a result of the Treaty, both in the Argentine and here, which was exemplified in the speeches made yesterday by the Foreign Secretary and also by the Argentine Ambassador. I hope we are now going to press that all these issues may be settled.
  10.54 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Mayhew): May I begin by giving the hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. Teeling) the assurance for which he asks, namely, that His Majesty's Embassy in Buenos Aires is not on holiday; that, indeed, since the signature of the Trade and Payments Agreement, we have been in touch with the Argentine Government on the question of pensions; and that we have not, and will not, fail to do the best we can for those British holders of pensions who, in many cases, are in a difficult and distressing situation as a result of the failure to allow remittance of their pensions according to their rights.
  On the general subject, which I am glad my hon. Friend the Member for Kelvingrove (Mr. J. L. Williams) has raised, may I say that we sympathise with and support the case put forward so sympathetically. The House has shown a lively interest in this subject. We have received a large correspondence at my Department about these pensions, and I think it can be said that we have taken action and that the action has helped to bring about the very hopeful state of affairs which now exists on this question.
  It is a great hardship to many people suddenly to have their pensions stopped, in effect, as they have been stopped. My hon. Friend the Member for Kelvin-grove quoted a letter which he received. I also should like to quote from a letter typical of those which we have been receiving. It is from Mr. McBay, of Parkstone, Dorset, who writes:
  "My own position is such that, if I cannot obtain any definite information as to when remittances will be made, I shall soon have to return to the Argentine to live, as soon I shall have exhausted all my small savings. I served during the 1914–18 war as a volunteer from the Argentine. My only son … served in the late war until he was killed in action in an air raid over Nuremberg in February, 1943. During the late war, I, along with many other Britishers working in the Argentine and too old
  1524
  to serve again, did what we could by financially assisting the British war effort by contributing from 15 to 20 per cent. from salaries right up to the end of the war. I am now over 65 years of age, retiring in 1947, and returned to England to live in 1948, and it will be a very bitter day for me if I am now forced to leave the land of my birth because I cannot receive the pension to which I am legally entitled after contributing for over 30 years to the Railway Pension Fund."
  That letter is typical of many we have received from nationals among the 350 in this country who have been put into a distressing and difficult situation as a result of these measures of the Argentine Government. Up to the last quarter of last year there was no difficulty on this score. Then severe exchange restrictions were imposed by the Argentine Government, which, may I say, was not the only government to impose severe restrictions on all kinds of remittances. They were restrictions which hit the pensioners hard.
  The situation arose from the original railways agreement which was negotiated by the railways themselves—not by His Majesty's Government—in 1947. In the course of the negotiations, Sir Montague Eddy, negotiating for the railways, received an oral—not written—agreement on the subject of these pensions from the Argentine authorities. In retrospect, it might perhaps have been desirable to have obtained, or tried to obtain, a more specific assurance on the point at the time when the railways' agreement was being negotiated. But it is easy to be wise after the event, and it would undoubtedly have been difficult to obtain.
  Since the end of last year, none of the pensions have been paid in this country: remittances have not been allowed for any of the payments. We had hoped to clear up the position during the projected visit of Senor Miranda to this country, but he relinquished office, and it was not until the Trade and Payments Agreement began to be negotiated in February of this year that it became possible to make headway on the general problem of Argentine trade restrictions, which included this problem of pensions.
  We have more than once made representations to the Argentine Government. These representations have taken the form of requests for the remission of remittances between the Argentine and the United Kingdom, and this larger question has been settled in principle by the signature of the Trade and Payments

  1525
  Agreement. The special case of pensioners has been mentioned from time to time; on 20th April by our Counsellor at Buenos Aires in an interview with the Argentine Minister of Defence; on 29th April by the Secretary of State when he handed to the Argentine Ambassador a memorandum covering employees generally, and in which the special hardship of pensioners was mentioned; and our Ambassador at Buenos Aires has sought to persuade Argentine banking authorities to release funds for pensioners in this country.
  I think we cannot be accused of lack of sympathy, or lack of action, on behalf of these pensioners. The position now, I am glad to say, definitely appears to be much more promising. As a result of patient and hard negotiations, we have succeeded in reaching the signing of the Trade and Payments Agreement. Article 25 of that Agreement states:
  "The Argentine Government would permit without restriction, in so far as sterling exchange is available, the remittance of invisible payments including profits, pensions, and other incomes in favour of residents of the scheduled territories."
  I can also inform the House that the Argentine Government are making arrangements to clear off, within a short period, without exchange loss, all pending remittances and all outstanding accounts. I think that assurance covers the two points, raised by my hon. Friend, which are still worrying pensioners in this country. In the first step of implementation of the Trade and Payments Agreement the Argentine Central Bank has issued a circular, and we are in touch with the Argentine Government on this very point.
  In those circumstances I doubt whether it is a good plan to set up some new arrangement as outlined by my hon. Friend in connection with the power of attorney, transferring, I suppose the peso assets to the British Embassy while the pensioners here are paid in sterling. I do not think that would be wise. We
  1526
  went into this before the Trade and Payments Agreement was signed, and we decided we really could not accept responsibility for, in fact, paying the pensioners in this country. There were many people and individuals in a difficult plight as a result of exchange restrictions in other countries, many indeed who were in a difficult plight on account of non-payments of peso assets as a result of Argentine exchange restrictions, other than these particular pensioners, and although we went into this carefully, we decided it was not practical to undertake some such a scheme as that outlined by the hon. Gentleman. The co-operation of the Argentine Government in this scheme might not have been possible to obtain.
  On the other hand, the action we have taken, the representations we have made, have led to a more hopeful situation, and we are justified in feeling that a satisfactory settlement will shortly be reached on this problem. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising this question, and I hope that before long the anxieties of these British pensioners will be relieved.
  Mr. Teeling: The hon. Gentleman stressed the point that the Embassy is certainly not asleep, but he did not refer to whether he is still pressing the claims of the Primavita Gas Company and the Buenos Aires Transport Corporation.
  Mr. Mayhew: On the subject of pensions, I explained that the Embassy was still in touch with the Argentine Government. On the subject of the Transport Corporation, the hon. Member will be aware of the recent representations we have made, and will know from the answers that I and others have given in the House that we are constantly making representations on this point.
  Adjourned accordingly at Five Minutes past Eleven o'Clock.

  AMATEUR RADIO STATIONS (WAVELENGTHS)
  AMATEUR RADIO STATIONS (WAVELENGTHS)
TELEPHONE SERVICE
  Applications, Reading
  Applications, Reading
  Rural Areas, Devonshire
  Rural Areas, Devonshire
  LOW-FLYING AIRCRAFT, EAST RIDING
  LOW-FLYING AIRCRAFT, EAST RIDING
CIVIL AVIATION
  Services, Scotland
  Services, Scotland
  Edinburgh—London Service
  Edinburgh—London Service
  GOLD COAST (SMALL TRADERS)
  GOLD COAST (SMALL TRADERS)
  BAHAMAS (GUIDED-MISSILES RANGE)
  BAHAMAS (GUIDED-MISSILES RANGE)
NIGERIA
  Mineral Royalties
  Mineral Royalties
  Accountancy Training
  Accountancy Training
  AFRICAN COLONIES (MASS EDUCATION)
  AFRICAN COLONIES (MASS EDUCATION)
FOOD SUPPLIES
  West Indian Sugar
  West Indian Sugar
  White Fish (Railway Rates)
  White Fish (Railway Rates)
EDUCATION
  Burnham Committee (Members)
  Burnham Committee (Members)
  Black-listed School Buildings
  Black-listed School Buildings
  FESTIVAL OF BRITAIN
  FESTIVAL OF BRITAIN
Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR On the Woolsack.
Prayers
  HALIFAX CORPORATION BILL
  Read 3a, with the Amendments; further Amendments made, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.
  SWINDON CORPORATION BILL
  Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

  DEVELOPMENT CHARGES ON CHARITABLE LAND
  2.35 p.m.
  VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
  [The Question was as follows:
  To ask His Majesty's Government whether a non-profit making public organisation, recognised as a charity for purposes of taxation, which has been ejected from its present premises by one of the newly nationalised industries who are its landlords, is liable to pay the full development charges in respect of other property necessarily acquired to carry on its work.]
  THE PAYMASTER GENERAL (LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR): My Lords, I am advised, and the noble Viscount is no doubt aware, that if an organisation acquires land after July 1, 1948, and obtains planning permission to build on it or materially to change its use, then under the terms of Section 69 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, development charge is payable if the permission adds to the value of the land.
  Under Section 85 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, land held on July 1, 1948, by a charity for the purposes of a charity is exempt from development charge if it is used in any manner for or in connection with the purposes of charity.
  188
  Land acquired by a charity after July 1, 1948, however, is not, as charitable land, in any way exempt from development charge and if, therefore, the charity carry out a material change of use of the land even although the use is for charitable purposes the question of development charge arises.
  I understand from the memorandum which the noble Viscount so kindly sent along that the case he has in mind relates to the lease by the United Nations Association, since July 1, 1948, of two houses in the West End in connection with which they obtained from the London County Council a planning permission.
  It is understood that the Association asked the district valuer at rather short notice to give them an informal opinion as to what the amount of the development charge was likely to be. He told them that it would be in the region of £10,000 to £15,000. When giving this opinion he assumed that the planning permission that the Association would obtain would be a planning permission which authorised the use of the premises as offices by anyone for the full period of the lease (thirty years) and that it would be subject to no conditions. One thing at least is clear about the actual planning permission, and that is that the very stringent restrictions contained in it must have the effect of considerably reducing the charge that would otherwise be payable.
  The Association have applied recently to the Central Land Board for determination of the charge but the Central Land Board tell me, and I think the noble Viscount will agree, that the valuation of planning permission owing to the terms accepted by the Association is not by any means a simple matter. The Central Land Board have under consideration and will, in negotiation with the Association, determine the amount of the charge as soon as they can.
  VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: My Lords, arising out of that rather complicated answer, may I ask whether it is the policy of His Majesty's Government that a tax should be indirectly placed upon a charitable organisation which is free from taxation? If not, it is clearly wrong that they should have to pay any development charge, which is merely a tax under another name.
  LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: My Lords, the noble Viscount will have noticed that in the second and third paragraphs of the answer which I have just given to him the question of charities is dealt with. May I repeat the opening part of the third paragraph:
  "Land acquired by a charity after July 1, 1948, is not, as charitable land, in any way exempt from development charge."
  Therefore the answer is that charities coming in that category are not relieved of development charge.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Why not? What is the question of principle involved in the date? If they are exempt before a certain date, why not after?
  LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: The answer is because, at the moment, it happens to be so under an Act of Parliament.
  VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: Then the result is that if there are two charities precisely similar, one which was there on June 30, 1948, would not have to pay tax, while if the other was there on July 2, 1948, it would have to pay tax. Do the Government really think that that is a serious form of taxation?
  LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: My Lords, so long as a differentiation remains the law of the land, the Government have no option but to carry it out.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, the House will remember that this provision came in a Bill the purpose of which was town and country planning. As I understand it, in this particular case there is no intention of altering the external structure; it is merely a matter of a change, for charitable purposes, of the use of rooms from one purpose to another. Can it really be considered as a question of planning? I am afraid we can almost draw the conclusion that this is only one of many cases, and a particularly deplorable one. Your Lordships will remember that when the Bill was before the House, we said that development charge had nothing whatever to do with planning. It is merely a particularly vicious form of indirect taxation, and in this case used only for hampering the activities of an organisation of which the Prime Minister and Mr. Churchill are Presidents and which has an object common to us all.

  ASSISTANCE TO GREECE
  2.43 p.m.
  LORD VANSITTART: My Lords, in rising to ask the question which stands in my name on the Order Paper, I beg leave of the House to explain that I have taken this course because the time originally allotted to my Motion on this important subject has been entirely absorbed by Government Business.
  [The Question was as follows:
  To ask His Majesty's Government whether they have any statement to make on increased assistance to Greece.]
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (LORD HENDERSON): My Lords, noble Lords will be aware that financial considerations obliged His Majesty's Government to lay down the main burden assistance to Greece in May, 1947, what our assistance to that country had already cost us over £60,000,000 since the end of the war. Although the main burden was then assumed by the United States Government, His Majesty's Government have nevertheless continued to afford substantial aid to the Greeks is their struggle against the Communist-led and foreign-aided rebellion. We have retained British troops in Greece; our missions continue to advise and train the Greek Army, Navy and Air Force and police; and we continue to supply Greece with military equipment and aircraft against payment. In the past year we have supplied in this way a large amount of military stores, 74 Spitfires and 24 training and 12 transport aircraft.
  Apart from this, our assistance to Greece in the economic field has also been substantial and we have granted her the sterling equivalent of 24,000,000 dollars' worth of drawing rights for the Marshall Year just ended. We have also made the Greek forces a gift of surplus stores of considerable value and we have now nearly completed delivery of the free gift of 22 Spitfires, which will arrive in time to make a valuable contribution to the present campaign against the rebels. I think noble Lords will agree that in our present economic situation we are not in a position to increase our material assistance to Greece, which, as I have shown, is being continued on a substantial scale. We have every sympathy with the plight of that unhappy people, and we have reason to hope that will the forces at

  191
  present at their disposal, helped by increasing disillusion and dissension in the rebel ranks, they may be able to obtain such a measure of success this year as will enable them soon to recover that peace which has so long been denied them.
  LORD VANSITTART: I thank the noble Lord for his full statement and I will revert to the subject on a more propitious occasion.
  VISCOUNT LONG: My Lords, arising out of the noble Lord's reply, may I ask what steps are being taken by His Majesty's Government to ensure that before any trade agreement is made with Yugoslavia, the children who were taken from Greece in the most horrible circumstances will be returned to that country? May I also ask whether the Government are aware of the appalling campaign led and paid for by Communists in this country, which is going on against Greece at the present time, and what steps they are going to take?
  LORD HENDERSON: My Lords, I think those two questions do not arise out of the Question on the Order Paper.
  THE EARL PERTH: My Lords, I am glad the noble Lord has been able to make this statement about Greece. I wish he had promised greater help to Greece, but I appreciate the economic difficulties to which he referred. I think we ought to express our admiration for the courage and tenacity of the Greek people and the Greek Army. They are fighting a battle for the freedom of the Atlantic democracies. It would be outside the scope of order to say any more, except to add that I hope the expectations set out in the last part of the answer will be fulfilled.

  UNITED KINGDOM HELP FOR WORLD RECOVERY
  2.49 p.m.
  LORD CHERWELL: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
  [The Question was as follows:
  To ask His Majesty's Government for details of the £900,000,000 which the Chancellor of the Exchequer said the United Kingdom had provided since the war to stimulate world trade and help forward world recovery, more especially the amounts given or loaned to each individual country, and
  192
  if possible, the dates on which these gifts or loans were made; and also whether they will state the amount of the sterling balances standing to the credit of the different countries at the end of the war; the extent to which each country has drawn on these balances; the amounts which they are still entitled to draw under existing agreements; and the amounts still standing to their credit.]
  THE MINISTER OF CIVIL AVIATION (LORD PAKENHAM): My Lords, the figure of approximately £900,000,000 quoted by my right honourable and learned friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer relates to gifts, loans and drawing rights made available by the United Kingdom to other countries since the war. With permission, I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a list giving details of these transactions. Since most of them took place over a period of time, it is not possible to give dates. With regard to the last part of the Question, I regret that I cannot disclose our sterling liabilities to individual countries or changes in them.
  Following is the list referred to:
  Since the end of the war the United Kingdom has made available the following sums in gifts, loans, and drawing rights.

  Gifts

  £ million

  U.N.R.R.A

  155

  I.R.O

  11.2

  Civil Affairs (not recoverable)

  49

  Greece, Armed Forces initial equipment, maintenance, etc

  31

  Greece, Surplus stores and relief supplies

  2

  Poland, Welfare and Social Services, June, 1946—March, 1947

  5

  Poland, Surplus stores

  6

  Austria: Before 1st April, 1946

  10

  Post U.N.R.R.A

  7.5

  Surplus machine tools

  0.125

  Hungary: Surplus machine tools

  0.2

  Italy: estimated value of surplus stores in excess of payments under financial agreement

  55

  Netherlands: Military equipment and surpluses, estimated portion in excess of payment under Debt settlement

  16

  Rumania: Medical supplies and surplus army foodstuffs

  0.02

  U.N. fund for Arab refugees in Palestine

  1

  Ex-Italian Colonies: Cost of administration

  12

  Burma: Cancellation of debt

  15

  B.M.A. expenditure (cancelled claim)

  23

  Total (say)

  400

  Loans and Recoverable Aid

  £ million

  Civil Affairs (recoverable)

  50

  France:

  Financial Agreement

  100

  Private credit

  15

  Denmark: Financial Agreement

  35

  Germany: Cost of supplying German civil economy

  194

  Netherlands: Military equipment and surpluses—estimated relative portion of total payment agreed under Debt Settlement

  25

  Greece: Stabilisation Loan

  10

  Burma:

  Loan and credits since 1945 (less amounts forgiven)

  27

  Stores supplied against later repayment

  9

  Miscellaneous (say)

  20

  Total

  485

  Drawing Rights exercised to June 30, 1949

  £ million

  Austria

  …

  …

  …

  …

  6.2

  France

  …

  …

  …

  …

  46.4

  Greece

  …

  …

  …

  …

  6.0

  Bizone

  …

  …

  …

  …

  0.9

  Turkey

  …

  …

  …

  …

  2.0

  61.5

  VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, arising out of the answer on the first item of £900,000,000 which has been given to other countries, may I ask the noble Lord on what ground of public policy or security we are precluded from knowing what drawings have taken place?
  LORD PAKENHAM: My Lords, I was asked in the second part of the Question to inform the noble Lord the amount of the sterling balances standing to the credit of the different countries at the end of the war. I should have thought that the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, who has had great experience of administration and government, would realise that it would be most unwise to publish information of that character.
  LORD CHERWELL: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for promising the figures giving the distribution of the £900,000,000. I have no doubt it will be ascertainable from those figures how much of it is due to conditional aid. Is the noble Lord able to tell me in what part of the Economic Survey these figures appear? Presumably, as they are important and large figures, they must appear somewhere in the Economic Survey, which purports to give a balance sheet. As to the second part of the Question, I must
  194
  say that I agree with lay noble friend Lord Swinton that it is an extraordinary thing that the Government refuse to tell the country what their debts are to the various countries, and to what extent those debts have been paid off. We were told at the end of the war that they amounted to £3,000,000,000, or something over that amount. I think we were even given figures at that time showing how much was owing to the various countries. Anything that is paid off represents unrequited exports from this country. Surely, when we are asked to make a united effort to increase exports and balance our trade, the country is entitled to know how much is going in unrequited exports, to which countries these are going and which debts they go to discharge.
  LORD PAKENHAM: My Lords, the noble Lord has thinly disguised a little speech in the form of a question. There will be a full economic debate next week, in which I lave been invited to take part, and I imagine the nobly Lord will also participate in that debate. I should have thought that was the time to raise this question, rather than now.
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, if we are to have an informed debate in this House, is it not the duty of the Government—as, indeed, was the course pursued by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in another place—to give all relevant information in regard to the matter?

  MARRIAGES PROVISIONAL ORDERS BILL
  2.57 p.m.
  Read 2a (according to Order), and committed.

  MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL, ORDER (SOUTH MOLTON) BILL
  MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (CHICHESTER) BILL
  MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (MORLEY) BILL
  MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (MACCLESFIELD) BILL
  Read 2a (according to Order), and committed.

  GLASGOW CORPORATION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL EDINBURGH AND MIDLOTHIAN WATER ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
  Considered on Report (according to Order).
  Then, Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended (pursuant to the Resolution of July 13), Bills read 3a, and passed.

  PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDER (CRARAE) BILL
  House in Committee (according to Order), on re-commitment of the Bill: Bill reported without amendment.
  Then, Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended (pursuant to the Resolution of July 13), Bill read 3a, and passed.

  PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDER (SOUTHWOLD) BILL
  House in Committee (according to Order), on re-commitment of the Bill: the Amendments proposed by the Joint Committee made.
  Then, Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended (pursuant to the Resolution of July 13), Bill reported with Amendments; Bill read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

  TEESSIDE RAILLESS TRACTION BOARD (ADDITIONAL ROUTES) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL
  House in Committee (according to Order), on re-commitment of the Bill: Bill reported without amendment.
  Then, Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended (pursuant to the Resolution of July 13), Bill read 3a, and passed.

  IRON AND STEEL BILL
  2.59 p.m.
  Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
  THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (VISCOUNT ADDISON): My Lords, on the Motion that is now before the House, in order that we may suit the general convenience perhaps I may explain how it is suggested, after consultation, that we should deal with the Business. There are certain Amendments on the Order Paper, which I hope will not take long to dispose of. I am sure we all wish that they should not interfere with the debate and, therefore, if it is agreeable, I suggest that we take the Third Reading formally. We can then take the Amendments, which I hope will occupy only a few minutes, and have the general debate on the question that the Bill do now pass. I hope that will meet with the convenience of all Members of the House. I beg formally to move that the Bill be now read a Third time.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Viscount Addison.)
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The noble Viscount the Leader of the House was good enough to consult me with regard to this proposal. I entirely agree that it is the most convenient way of dealing with this rather unusual situation where we have Amendments on the Third Reading.
  On Question, Bill read 3a, with the Amendments.
  Clause 4:
  General duty of the Corporation
  (2) If any such undue preference or unfair discrimination as aforesaid is shown or exercised or reasonably apprehended, any person affected shall have a right of action for damages, or for an injunction or other relief as may be just.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT JOWITT)THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT JOWITT) moved to leave out subsection (2) and insert:
  "() Nothing in this section shall be construed as imposing on the Corporation, either directly or indirectly, any form of duty or liability enforceable by proceedings before any court."
  The noble and learned Viscount said: My Lords, the Leader of the House has asked me to deal with this matter very briefly. I do not think anybody could

  197
  have heard the speeches of the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, and the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Maugham, without realising that whatever view he might form as to what the courts would do, it was impossible to say that there was no room for any doubt. Lord du Parcq's statement has been referred to, and I entirely agree with the proposition that the Legislature should put it beyond a doubt as to whether it intends that a private individual, injured by breach of the Statute, should or should not have right of action for damages.
  There are two ways of resolving this doubt. The one which was adopted on the last occasion by the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, made it plain that the private individual who can establish the necessary facts shall have a right of action. The other way is by providing that the private individual who establishes the facts shall not have a right of action. The Government think that the latter course is the right course to take. May I say this in support of this Amendment? I was consulted and was as responsible as anybody for the form in which this Bill was introduced. The form in which this Bill was introduced did not contain any undue preference clause at all. At a later stage the Minister was pressed to include such an obligation, and on March 28 of this year he tabled an Amendment providing that the duty of the Corporation under this clause shall not be enforceable by proceedings before any court or tribunal. Then the Minister was pressed—I am being perfectly frank—to withdraw that Amendment in favour of a qualification of the obligation.
  I confess that at that stage I was not as familiar as I ought to have been with the manœuvres which were proceeding on one side and the other. I must say that, looking at it now, it does seem to me that the qualification on the obligation, so far from removing the desirability to have that clause, has accentuated it. We now find in Clause 4 (1) (b) this provision:
  "to secure that neither the Corporation nor any publicly-owned company"—
  that is to say, the company nearest to John O'Groats and the company nearest to Land's End, all of whom, I may say incidentally, are supposed, on the principle of decentralisation, to work out their own salvation—
  198
  "shall show undue preference to, or exercise unfair discrimination against, any such persons or any class thereof in the supply and price of those products."
  Then comes this qualification, which makes it much more obscure:
  "but without prejudice to such variations in the terms and conditions on which those products are supplied as may arise from ordinary commercial considerations."
  When I have that obligation extending not only to the Corporation but to every publicly-owned company throughout the country, in whatever part of the country it may be, and I have that qualification exempting commercial considerations, quite frankly I really do not know where I stand in regard to an undue preference.
  It is one thing to have an undue preference with regard to a railway company which establishes rights, or with regard to a gas company or an electricity company. But where I see an undue preference which is to be without prejudice to ordinary commercial considerations, it seems to me that you are in the vague ambit of good morals, and are not on a question of law at all. Everybody would think it deplorable and wrong as a matter of good morals, that the Corporation or any company should try to put anybody out of business by making things difficult for him. Of course, I agree with that. But you have here an obligation of such vague import, so utterly unlike any stipulation with regard to undue preference which has ever been heard of before in this country, that I say that this is an obligation which had much better be left to political considerations than to the courts of law. I suggest that the right way of dealing with this matter is for anybody who thinks he has been aggrieved to go to the Consumers' Council, and from there to the Minister, rather than to ask the courts of this country to interpret language and circumstances which, I humbly submit to your Lordships, is quite impossible. For those reasons I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 6, line 9, leave out subsection (2) and insert the said new sublcction.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  3.7 p.m.
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, the proposition which the Lord Chancellor presented to the House Monday, and

  199
  which he has reinforced in his argument to-day, is, of course, an entirely novel one to us. We were all taken completely by surprise when, on a purely clarifying Amendment, the Lord Chancellor invited us to change the whole structure and purpose of the clause as presented to this House and advocated by the Government spokesman when we discussed the clause, very fully, in Committee. I said that we would, of course, give it the most careful consideration. I will be as brief as I can, but the more we have looked at this Amendment, the less we like it; and I must explain why we feel it impossible to accept it. Up to now it has been common ground on both sides of the House that an action would lie, and although the Minister may have tabled some proposal in another place, in fact no such proposition was ever moved by the Minister or by anybody else, either in Committee or on Report in another place: it was never proposed to us until last Monday.
  That there should be a provision against undue preference is clearly right. If there is to be a protection and a provision against undue preference then, surely, it is equally right that that should be enforceable by the person who is aggrieved. On Monday, the Lord Chancellor asked us to accept what had been done in the Transport Act. With great respect, I submit that transport is no precedent whatsoever. The Transport Commission are not in competition with a large number of other manufacturers. The Commission serve everybody, but under this Bill the Steel Corporation and its subsidiary companies will be in direct competition with independent firms over a very wide range of business. It will be quite possible—and that is why the clause against undue preference is inserted—for the Corporation, or any of its companies, to favour the publicly-owned companies, as they are called, at the expense of the independent companies.
  The other argument which was advanced, that any small sale at a different price would give rise to an action is, I think, quite unjustifiable. The Lord Chancellor quoted the words that come at the end of Clause 4 (b)—
  "… without prejudice to such variations in the terms and conditions on which those products are supplied as may arise from ordinary commercial considerations."
  200
  The noble and learned Viscount poured scorn upon those words. But those are not our words; they are the words which were deliberately introduced by the Minister in another place; and they were passed and presented to us, on the Minister's advice, as the right way of dealing with this matter and as the right safeguard to ensure that there would not be a number of small and frivolous actions. It is true that when we had the clause before us here we extended its ambit. As presented to us, the clause covered only the Second Schedule products, primarily steel, and your Lordships extended it to cover the principal activities of the Corporation and its companies. Even with that extension I submit that it is right that there should be a provision against undue preference.
  I cannot anticipate what may happen in another place, or what your Lordships may do afterwards. We have, however, been warned by the noble Viscount the Leader of the House, that there is every prospect that the Government will do their best to persuade another place to reject the Amendment which your Lordships made, and put back this clause, so that its ambit covers only Second Schedule products—in effect pig-iron, ingot steel, and rolled products. But these semi-manufactured articles are exactly the raw materials of the nationalised companies and of all the hundreds of companies which are not nationalised and with which they will be in competition; and if the clause were limited in this way to cover only Second Schedule products, then it is essential that there should be a prohibition against undue preference. The Consumers' Council is no answer. It has not been an answer in other industries. Nor is it any satisfaction to be told that an aggrieved person can go to the Minister on an appeal against what has been done by the Minister's own Corporation or its subsidiaries. It is a sound principle, which I think has always been accepted, that you should not only do what is just; you should also appear to be doing justice.
  Another proposition which I should have thought was unanswerable is that where a statutory right is given, and a statutory duty imposed, in order to protect the subject against a possible wrong by these nationalised undertakings, the

  201
  person subject to that protection should have a right to go to the courts of this country and not to have to go as a suppliant to a Minister of the Crown. There need be no fear of a mass of actions; the petty case would not sustain an action. Moreover, if the sanction of a right of action is there I do not suppose that the offence is likely to be committed. We have given all the consideration we could to this matter, as we promised we would. I think it is a bad and a wrong proposition. I think the subject should have the right in this important and critical matter to go to the court; that is what has been presented to us hitherto by the Government. The
  Clause 15 [Disclaimer of agreements and leases]:
  LORD HAWKE: My Lords, this Amendment and that immediately following are consequential on Amendments passed on the last stage of the Bill. I beg to move.
  Government have repeatedly begged us to stand by the Bill as presented to us. We have not always been able to accept that advice. In this case I think your Lordships would be well advised to accept what were, after the first and second thoughts of the Government, and not to accept this last-moment change which is proposed. I would, therefore, advise your Lordships not to agree to this proposal.
  On Question, Whether the said new sub-section shall be there inserted?
  Their Lordships divided: Contents, 18; Not-Contents, 75.

  CONTENTS

  Jowitt, V. (L. Chancellor.)

  Ammon, L.

  Macdonald of Gwaenysgor, L.

  Chorley, L. [Teller.]

  Marley, L.

  Addison, V. (L. Privy Seal.)

  Henderson, L.

  Morrison, L.

  Holden, L.

  Pakenham, L.

  Hall, V.

  Kershaw, L.

  Pethick-Lawrence, L.

  Stansgate, V.

  Lindsay of Birker, L.

  Shepherd, L.

  Lucas of Chilworth [Teller.]

  Strabolgi, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS

  Sutherland, D.

  Long, V.

  Hawke, L.

  Ridley, V.

  Hindlip, L.

  Aberdeen and Temair, M.

  Samuel, V.

  Kenilworth, L.

  Cholmondeley, M.

  Swinton, V.

  Leyton, L.

  Salisbury, M.

  Trenchard, V.

  Merthyr, L.

  Willingdon, M. [Teller.]

  Milford, L.

  Ailwyn, L.

  Monkswell, L.

  Airlie, E.

  Balfour of Inchrye, L.

  Newall, L.

  Buckinghamshire, E.

  Barnby, L.

  O'Hagan, L.

  De La Warr, E.

  Blackford, L.

  Polwarth, L.

  Dudley, E.

  Brand, L.

  Rennell, L.

  Fortescue, E. [Teller.]

  Brassey of Apethorpe, L.

  Rochdale, L.

  Grey, E.

  Braye, L.

  Roche, L.

  Halifax, E.

  Broughshane, L.

  Rockley, L.

  Howe, E.

  Carrington, L.

  Saltoun, L.

  Manvers, E.

  Cawley, L.

  Sandhurst, L.

  Perth, E.

  Cherwell, L.

  Schuster, L.

  Rothes, E.

  Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)

  Seaton, L.

  Selkirk, E.

  Sherwood, L.

  Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

  Cranworth, L.

  Templemore, L.

  Ypres, E.

  De L'Isle and Dudley, L.

  Teynham, L.

  Denman, L.

  Thurlow, L.

  Bridgeman, V.

  Dorchester, L.

  Tweedsmuir, L.

  Caldecote, V.

  Dowding, L.

  Waleran, L.

  Cecil of Chelwood, V.

  Ellenborough, L.

  Wolverton, L.

  Davidson, V.

  Gifford, L.

  Woolton, L.

  Hailsham, V.

  Harlech, L.

  Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

  Amendment moved—
  Page 17, line 13, leave out from ("not") to the third ("the") in line 17 and insert ("a proper transaction made in the ordinary course of business regard being had to the circumstances at the time.")—(Lord Hawke.)
  VISCOUNT ADDISON: My Lords, these next two Amendments, and also the Amendment to Clause 27, which is consequential on the same issue, were taken

  203
  to a Division on the Report stage, as your Lordships are well aware, against our advice. But we accept them as consequential on that Division, although we disagree with them as much as we did before.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD HAWKE: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 17, leave out lines 19 to 26.—(Lord Hawke.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 27 [Other transactions resulting in dissipation of assets]:
  LORD HAWKE: My Lords, this Amendment is also consequential. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 40, line 28, leave out from ("applies") to the second ("the") in line 33.—(Lord Hawke.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (VISCOUNT HALL): My Lords, I move that the Bill do now pass. In doing so I would just say this. At the present time, when individual liberty and the democratic way of life are suffering extinction in so many countries, it is good to reflect that here we can still freely debate, in an atmosphere of tolerance and understanding, a measure involving so much controversy. In countries under the shadow of the Iron Curtain, an expression of opinion against an important Government measure of this nature would have led to what is now known by the sinister term of "liquidation." Thank God, My Lords, we still order things differently in this country and, much as we may differ in our opinions, we can still debate them freely and openly.
  It is natural that a Bill of this importance and magnitude should arouse great interest in your Lordships' House, and no fewer than thirty-eight noble Lords have taken part in one or more of its stages. Here I should like to pay a tribute to both sides, for it is generally agreed that much of the success for its easy passage was due to the understanding between both sides of the House. Great credit is due to my noble friend the Leader of the
  204
  House, who has displayed his great industry, ability and usual irresistible charm. He was always willing to discuss in a friendly and informal way the many difficult points which necessarily arose from a Bill of this importance. For the Opposition, the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, and his friends, and the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, have, as usual, fought a fair and courageous battle, employing all their ability and thoroughness in arguing their case—the noble Viscount, of course, retaining his position as the principal anti-nationaliser, with a record number of speeches on this Bill, as on other nationalisation Bills, making good speeches, both long and short. A tribute can also be paid to the very fair and moderate manner in which some of the noble Lords opposite, who are themselves, as were their forefathers before them, closely associated with this industry, have without feeling submitted their case with ability to your Lordships' House. I thought that was really remarkable. I am afraid that I should not be as patient had I and my forebears been so closely associated with this industry. Naturally, members of the Opposition dislike this Bill, but whether we agree or disagree with it, we all recognise that an efficient iron and steel industry is absolutely essential to the economic and financial life of this nation.
  I do not propose at this stage to repeat the arguments that I used when I had the honour to move the Second Reading of the Bill just before the Whitsun Recess, but I would say that nothing that noble Lords opposite have been able to say during the course of the debates on this Bill has shaken His Majesty's Government's belief in the soundness, both as a political proposition and as an economic one, of their determination to nationalise the iron and steel industry upon the basis set out in this Bill. Our plan, as it appears to me, secures two vital principles: first, that this all-important industry—the production of iron and steel—shall be controlled by the Government of the day, who represent the nation and interpret the nation's interests; and, secondly, subject to that overriding consideration, that the producing companies, which have so fine a record of production and of service to the country in this industry, shall continue their operations in

  205
  the application of the overall general policy laid down for them by the Iron and Steel Corporation of Great Britain set up under this Bill.
  The making of iron and steel in its many forms will be the responsibility of the managements of the existing companies who will, we hope, retain their identities, their good will and the loyalties they have built up. The Corporation, as a holding company, will ensure the development of the industry and see that price, quality and type of products conform to the nation's overall economic needs.
  It is pleasing to note that there was no adverse reaction in the industry as a result of the introduction of this Bill, as had been forecast by a number of its opponents. Indeed, results have shown that those who said there would be were slandering both the managements and the men employed in all branches of this industry, for it is a fact that since that day in May, 1946, when the Prime Minister made the announcement of the introduction of the Bill, production has gone up from an annual rate of over 13,000,000 tons to a very high level; and output in May ran at an annual rate of 16,400,000 tons. This was far in excess of the 1948 output which was 14,900,000 tons. That disposes of those gloomy prophecies to which I have referred, and it can be said that one of the incidental virtues of the Bill is that it imposes a scheme of nationalisation without dislocation of this industry. Indeed, the set-up provided by the Bill combines all that is best in public ownership and private enterprise. It represents an integral part of the Government's plan for establishing a prosperous national economy.
  Your Lordships' House has dealt with the Bill with expedition. A comparison of the time taken over this Bill in your Lordships' House with that of another place can best be judged when I say that as against the five clays in Committee here, it was before the Standing Committee for thirty-six sittings in another place, and of some 550 Amendments on the Order Paper, 83 were made. On Committee and Report in another place, the time taken was about 110 hours for the insertion of 150 Amendments. In your Lordships' House on the Committee and Report stages, the aggregate time
  206
  spent was 33½ hours, giving an average of 35 minutes for each Amendment made.
  During the five days of the Committee stage, 111 Amendment were considered and 38 were made. On Report, 37 were considered and 19 were made. Of the total of 57 Amendments made, 28 are Amendments to which His Majesty's Government have agreed, for some represent real improvements Particular mention might be made of the following: the acceptance of the principle of decentralisation; the limitation of compulsory purchase powers; the clarification of the appeal procedure relative to the arbitration tribunal; the limitation of powers to obtain information; and the duty in relation to restoration of land. Of the 29 Amendments which were voted in against the Government, or were accepted by the Government under protest as consequential to Amendments on which there had been Government defeats, the more important were the postponement of the general date of transfer; the qualifications of a specified number of Corporation members; the restriction of subsidiaries of the Corporation to specified activities except with the consent of Parliament; the extension of the Corporation's duty to the principal activities of the Corporation and the publicly-owned companies; disallowing "public interest" as a justification for showing preference; the inclusion of an express right of action in Clause 4; the establishment of an Iron and Steel Prices Board; the laying of an obligation on the Corporation to prepare a scheme of decentralisation; the alteration for disclaiming contracts; the assessment of compensation; and the publication of accounts of individual companies. Those cover a considerable number of important questions.
  It was only to be expected, of course, that important Amendments would be carried against the Government—this was indeed inevitable in such an unbalanced House as this—unbalanced, I hasten to say, only in the numerical strength of the Parties. That is tie more so, however, in view of the fact that unfortunately noble Lords of the Liberal Party have been completely swallowed up by the Tory Opposition throughout all the debates on this Bill. I can only hope that, like Jonah, they will later emerge so that they can once more express their independence in our political life.

  207
  I venture to say, however, that the true opinion of the opponents of this Bill is best expressed, not by their Amendments to its detailed provisions but by their Amendment postponing its operation until after the lifetime of the present Parliament—a postponement which they have accompanied with an open declaration of their intention to repeal the Bill, if only the General Election runs in their favour. Notwithstanding all the millions of the noble Lord, Lord Woolton, there is no hope, or very little hope, of such a result, particularly when the noble Lord reflects that, despite all the work he has put in, and after the Government have had four years of responsibility in a period of great difficulty and crises, the present Government have not lost a single by-election. I should again point out very clearly and plainly that the Government necessarily reserve the right to advise another place how these Amendments should be dealt with, including the serious blemishes made on the Bill by noble Lords opposite. We on this side of the House do not delude ourselves for a moment that noble Lords opposite have any affection for this Bill, despite all the efforts they have made to amend it. They have rather treated it as one would expect a person to deal with a dog which he thought was on the verge of madness. He would make every attempt to muzzle it first, and then, if he could find a gun, he would destroy it. Noble Lords opposite are going to look for the gun at the next Election, but they will not find it. My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
  Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Viscount Hall.)
  3.42 p.m.
  LORD WOOLTON: My Lords, it is characteristic of the generosity of the noble Viscount who has just spoken that, in spite of the envy that is in his heart regarding some hypothetical millions (though there is only one), he still, as no doubt your Lordships have noticed, comes forward after his opening remarks rejoicing that we live in this country, and that we have not here such conditions as would have secured that I, at any rate, would have been liquidated and so would have ceased to worry him.
  The noble Viscount has so much Parliamentary capacity that as he was speak-
  208
  ing on this Bill I almost thought that he liked it himself and that he certainly thought that a great number of other people liked it. I think the truth is that whilst this Bill created a good deal of interest at one time it has, in fact, passed from public interest because knowledgeable people know that overshadowing us all at this present time is an economic storm of major dimensions; and that this is a time when issues dividing us ought in fact to have been put aside whilst those that bind us together and give us mutual confidence in one another, and give other countries confidence in our unity, ought to be foremost in our minds. The threat to our economic stability which overhangs us is a threat to the whole of the sterling area associated with us. It has been prominent in public interest and in the public Press during the course of the last few months, but His Majesty's Government have been aware of this danger for at least a year. They certainly have been aware of it ever since the present Chancellor of the Exchequer assumed office. They were aware of the danger when they introduced this Bill into Parliament.
  The iron and steel-producing industries, and those other industries which are using their products, have done a great deal, as the noble Viscount was at pains to point out, to strengthen the confidence of other countries by the contributions which they have made to our economy in this period of unbalance and by the contribution they have made to the export trade of the country. Now, at this very moment when to this industry confidence and urge to development, and the expenditure of money on research, are of supreme importance, the Government have seen fit to give those in charge of it effective notice of dismissal. The effect of such blind indifference to the welfare of this great national industry is something that only those of us who are personally concerned with the industry and who know something of its daily management can appreciate. Noble Lords opposite are accustomed to being under constant threat of dismissal from office, as are all of us who have been in office. It spurs them on to greater daring and sometimes to fresh follies of language and of action. But that is not what happens when it is threatened in the industrial world. This Bill can do nothing to add to the strength of the industries with which it deals. It can do nothing to add to the efficiency

  209
  of their ultimate organisation, and its immediate effect—here I speak from knowledge—is to make men pause and wonder whether new plans and new research which will take a long time to develop are proper things for the present directors of these undertakings to embark upon at a time when their tenure of office is threatened. The noble Viscount deceives himself if he thinks that this great development of the productive capacity of the iron and steel industries since they were threatened by nationalisation has been caused by that threat.
  Your Lordships have given a great deal of time to the discussion of what to many noble Lords sitting on the Benches opposite must have been a most embarrassing Bill. It has brought discord wherever it has appeared. It has brought discord within the Party of the noble Lords opposite. The noble Lord referred to this being an unbalanced House. If he will forgive a plagiarism from the words of an eminent member of the Government, I would say that the Government have gone crazy in introducing this Bill at this particular time. It came to your Lordships' House as a piece of legislation in a deplorable condition, for which the Government must take responsibility, because those who control the Party in another place were not prepared to give Parliamentary time to the discussion of a measure containing destructive proposals, proposals which seem to me to be the most destructive that have been introduced within my memory into either House of Parliament.
  What is this Bill going to do? It deals with a major industry of this country, an industry not only vital to our wellbeing in time of peace, but one which served us magnificently in the last war and since the war has broken record after record. It is an industry which has produced steel in this country cheaper than it is produced anywhere else in the world, except in the Broken Hill plant in Australia, which has special advantages. Now the gentlemen who control the Socialist Party propose to nationalise it, to put it under central and a vastly different form of control, and to abandon personal responsibility allied to ownership. As a manufacturing nation we are dependent on the iron and steel trade and on the capacity of its leading men.
  210
  This capacity is to be discarded. I know there are some noble Lords opposite who have a theory about the construction of the industry, who will assure us that this capacity is not being discarded, and that the new National Board will willingly embrace all the capacities that the trade possesses. It will not embrace them; it will suffocate them. People who have beer accustomed to running their own businesses and taking their own business risks, to making up their own minds and giving decisions without reference to remote committees, and to seeking new methods, new openings and new avenues for their trade, cannot join in these amorphous amalgamations of disinterested management by committees. This Bill means the suffocation and strangulation of the enterprise of the British steel industry.
  Can anyone benefit by it? We have had experience of nationalisation. The country has already seen its effect on the coal trade, on which the steel industry is so dependent. I shall not weary your Lordships by repeating what you already know of this, but let me remind you that before the last General Election the Socialist Party told the people that if they were elected they would nationalise coal and make it a State industry for the benefit of the people. When people voted for that, they thought these gentlemen knew what they were talking about and how to do what they were suggesting should be done. People thought they had given proper consideration to all the innumerable matters that would arise. But they were wrong. The gentleman who talked so glibly about taking over the industry knew nothing about it. They had an idea, they had a slogan; but when he came down to the job, the Minister as your Lordships know, was completely ignorant as to how it should be done. It was obvious that the commercial consequences of such an action had not been considered.
  In spite of the generous and single-minded help given to the Minister, the nationalisation of coal has failed on every count to bring benefit to the people, to bring increased wealth to the nation, or greater happiness to the miners. Nationalisation has taken the life out of the coal trade. Men who are not dispossessed capitalists but who are working tech-

  211
  nicians in the trade are now freely admitting that under the multitudinous conglomeration of regulations by authorities farther and farther removed from the point of decision, they are now suffering from a sense of frustration and they have abandoned all hope of the industry achieving the aims which many noble Lords had for it when, I am sure with great sincerity, the Government put their theory into practice.
  I understand that the Secretary of State for War has said that unless the nationalisation of the coal industry works, Socialism in this country will fail. I think he is right—and I think it is failing. It is failing to produce the promised benefits. It is failing to produce any simplification of our industrial organisation. It is certainly failing to reproduce the export trade we enjoyed before the war and which is so vital to this country. I have talked about the coal trade because there we have a practical example before us of what happens when an industry is nationalised. In spite of that practical experience, the Government bring in this Bill. Obviously, they do not know how the Bill will work. They bring it in at a time when experience has warned them that nationalisation is followed by an increase in prices which is fatal to our export trade. Nationalisation with all its attendant changes is bound to be followed at least temporarily, by confusion and a decline in output. Yet at this time, when they are urging us so rightly to increase our export trade, they are throwing the iron and steel trade into confusion. No wonder so many supporters of the Government stayed away from the House. It is easier for them to do it than it is for Members in another place.
  I believe that if this Bill ever becomes law—and I hope it never will—it will do infinite damage to our economic life. I believe it will do damage to the trade union movement. I know that noble Lords on the Government Benches feel that because of their long and honourable association with the trade union movement they have some prescriptive right to speak for the trade unions. It is true that large numbers of people who are members of trade unions do not believe in Socialism and, moreover, deplore the growing tendency of closer and closer alliance between the Government
  212
  of the day and the trade union bosses. Trade union leaders, of course, know that this Government depend for their existence, their strength and their continuance in power, upon the trade union movement. When industries are nationalised, then the Government become the bosses. When the ordinary trade unionist sees his trade union leaders "hobnobbing" with the bosses, he begins to wonder which of them is in the pocket of the other.
  VISCOUNT HALL: May I ask the noble Lord what right has he to speak on behalf of the trade unions?
  LORD WOOLTON: I have every right to speak on a general public issue. It is arrogance for noble Lords opposite to think they only have the right to speak for the trade unions. I have been associated with them for a very long time. I am an ardent supporter of the trade unions. I support their organisation in my own business. I think they are right in saying that when they see the Government and the trade union leaders working so closely together, they are fearful. The most unfortunate phrase of the Attorney-General, "We are the bosses now," has made the work of the trade union leaders a great deal more difficult. If the noble Viscount objects to my talking about the trade unions, at any rate he will agree that one of the great problems facing this country now is that so many members of the trade unions are not following the lead of their appointed leaders. I am sure they would be very much better advised if they did follow that lead. At any rate, this is certain: that this Bill can do nothing to improve the admirable relations that have existed between the trade union leaders and the steel trade for fifty years.
  I was frankly surprised that the Government introduced this measure. I agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, when he says that this was not one of the issues at the General Election. I think it is true that before this Bill was introduced, there was a certain temper in the country that was inclined to the view that possibly it was no bad thing that nationalisation should be tried. Particularly was this so in regard to the coal industry, about which a widespread view was held that there was an industry of great importance, probably a wasting asset and certainly in danger of being a

  213
  wasted asset. There was a feeling that perhaps nationalisation might be tried in regard to the railways, many of which had to be maintained for strategical purposes at a loss. There was a feeling, also, that gas and electricity, already so largely concerned with the affairs of public authorities, should also be nationalised. But after experience of nationalisation, particularly of the coal trade, people were beginning to wonder whether it would not be better if we waited.
  Then Mr. Herbert Morrison made a speech which I thought was of the greatest importance. Your Lordships will remember it. It was a speech in which he told us what were the limitations of nationalisation. He pointed out (I am quite fairly interpreting his sense, but I am not quoting him verbatim) that an industry must be measured by its efficiency; that if it failed in service to the public, then it must be taken over by the public for its more efficient conduct. I thought that was a very fair remark—though it begged the question as to whether the industry would be more effective when taken over by the public. It promised, in fact, a fair trial for the industries in this country, and a fair chance of retaining their independence if they were good enough. Mr. Morrison's remarks had another effect, in that they made the traders of this country think that while they were efficient they would be safe from being taken over by the Government. To put it one way, Mr. Morrison gave them the incentive of fear.
  What do we find now? Have the Socialist Party discarded Mr. Morrison's test? Here is this Steel Bill—and I doubt whether even the most optimistic of noble Lords opposite will claim that the Corporation can run the industry more efficiently than it is being run now. Is it, indeed, that the test of how the nation can best be served has been abandoned, either because of the adherence to Socialist doctrine, or because some members of His Majesty's Government have a hatred of steel owners and want to take possession of their industry? In view of Mr. Morrison's statement, I think we are entitled to ask where the Government stand.
  LORD PAKENHAM: I do not wish to interrupt the noble Lord, but could he give us Mr. Morrison's statement in
  214
  the words in which it was delivered? He has informed us that Mr Morrison gave industries the impression that they would not be nationalised if they were efficient. I would like to know the words Mr. Morrison used.
  LORD WOOLTON: I have quoted it very often, and I will give it to the noble Lord. I cannot give the verbatim account now, but I have certainly given a fair interpretation of it. The reason why I have intervened in this debate is because this Steel Bill gives a clear indication of the policy this Government are going to pursue in the future. It means that no longer are industries, even when well conducted, safe from being taken over by the Government. If the hopes of noble Lords opposite are met, and after the next Election we still see them sitting on that side of the House, it is clear that the nationalisation of steel will be followed by the nationalisation of sugar, cement, insurance and banking—the whole range of these industrial and commercial activities a at have a monumental record of competence and successful trading that comes when men engaged in industry are allowed to have the sense of creating something—enjoying the product of their work and knowing that on their skill and judgment depends not only the success of their industry but the prosperity of their families and of the people above them.
  I am convinced that this policy of nationalisation will be ruinous to the country, and that is why I am standing here to-day. If I did not believe that, I should not be occupying my present position. In the few years in which I have been engaged in public life I have had many happy associations and many common aspirations with noble Lords who sit on the opposite Benches, and with gentlemen who occupy similar Benches in the other place. But on this economic issue of the nationalisation of the means of production, distribution and exchange I am sure they are wrong. I am sure that if they carry out their policy they will bring economic disaster to this country; and it is because I feel so strongly on those lines that I have ventured to address your Lordships to-day.
  4.7 p.m.
  LORD RENNELL: My Lords, I have had the privilege of taking part in discussions on all the nationalisation Bills that have been before your Lordships'

  215
  House. Frankly, with many of the principles of some of the earlier ones I found myself in agreement. What is the difference between those Bills and this one? I think the difference is fairly easy to see, and it accounts for that particular association of my noble friends on these Benches with those who occupy the Conservative Benches in your Lordships' House which seems to have got so much "under the skin" of the noble Viscount, Lord Hall. He has referred to it on two occasions, and it seems to him to matter more, perhaps, than many other things.
  On each of the occasions on which a nationalisation Bill has been passed there has been, as it were, a valedictory debate; and appropriately so, because I do not suppose the other nationalisation Acts which have passed, though they will probably require amendment, will need to be repealed. It was, therefore, appropriate when they left your Lordships' House that there should be such a valedictory debate. On this occasion, however, I do not think any valediction is appropriate or desirable, because this Bill, when it passes from your Lordships' House to another place, and when it has been considered there with the Amendments which have been made in your Lordships' House, will still not be an Act, and many things will happen before it becomes an Act. Therefore, it would be inappropriate to hid it farewell, as we certainly cannot bid it God-speed, because we shall have it before us again.
  What has happened to make this nationalisation Bill so different from the others that have gone before? It seems to me to be this—that on this measure turns, perhaps, a much more important thing than merely the nationalisation of the iron and steel industry. We see in this Bill the abandonment of the justification put forward that common services should be rendered freely without profit. Here we see the abandonment also of the justification to which Lord Woolton referred: that by nationalising iron and steel greater efficiency will be introduced into the industry. We see, instead, barefaced, unashamed and open, the desire for power; the preference for the State over the individual; the adulation of the State and the submergence of the individual; the submergence of individual enterprise and the subservience of the
  216
  individual to the State, because at the back of the Socialist doctrine resides this idea that the State is both more important, more wise, more efficient and better than the individuals which compose it.
  On that issue, if on no other, noble Lords on these Benches will always find themselves in whole-hearted opposition to the Socialist Party and its doctrines, and in that opposition will be glad to cooperate with anyone who holds the same ideas, because that is a fundamental question of principle about whether people are to be preferred to organisations. That is the fundamental basis on which our civilisation, our culture and all our spiritual background has been built up. It is the background of the ethics of our religion that the individual, first and foremost, matters; and that no organisation can be greater than the individuals who compose it. It is because we believe that this Bill is the first example of the application of a doctrine which believes that the State is greater and more important than the people, and that the people must subserve to that doctrine, that we have opposed and will continue to oppose this Bill. On the application or otherwise of that doctrine depends not only the liberties of the people, the happiness of the people in the industries, the happiness of the people and their relations with the people who lead them, but also the continuance of the whole of the background on which the history of this country and its influence in the world has been built up.
  4.13 p.m.
  LORD LINDSAY OF BIRKER: My Lords, I should perhaps apologise for intervening, in this debate when I have been able to attend so few of the previous discussions on this Bill, but I had duties in other places which made it impossible for me to be here. There have been many statements in the Press and in this House—some even this afternoon—that we on these Back Benches in our heart of hearts dislike the Bill, and that if we were as honest or as courageous as the noble Lord, Lord Milverton, we would follow his example. I hear that all the time. We support this Bill apparently for some mysterious political loyalty, though we do not believe in it. Therefore I want to give some reasons for the faith that is in me about this matter.

  217
  When I read through the discussions on this Bill in this House and in another place, I was struck, both in the speeches on the Second Reading and in Committee, with what seems to me a curious but constantly recurring assumption—we have had it again this afternoon—that economic reasons for nationalisation, if economically sound, are respectable, but political reasons are always bad. There may, of course, be economic or efficiency reasons for nationalisation. No one nowadays would, I suppose, want to denationalise the roads and revive the turnpike companies—not even Lord Woolton.
  LORD WOOLTON: You are quite right.
  LORD LINDSAY OF BIRKER: I can imagine the horror of the noble Earl, Lord Howe, if that were done. But normally I submit that the reason for nationalisation is and ought to be political. It is the simple Liberal and democratic principle which I learnt from my Liberal parents, that public power—that is, power over the fortunes and destiny of the public—should be publicly controlled. I am quite prepared to admit the complementary principle that purely technical power, the power of making technical decisions which have no social consequences, should not be publicly controlled. Unfortunately, in modern industry it is often very difficult, especially in large and highly organised industries, to make that distinction effective, because what I have called public power is a by-product of technical power. May I take a simple and familiar example? Suppose United Steel resolve, possibly on quite proper technical grounds, to concentrate their works in West Cumberland at Workington rather than in Maryport. That, clearly, has enormous social and political consequences to the whole of West Cumberland, and it should be in the hands of the public. Instances of that kind, not only concerned with the location of industries, could be multiplied. This, I submit to the House, is our modern dilemma, and I think it is a very important one. How are we to transfer to public control technical decisions which have important social consequences, and leave to the technical experts responsible control and initiative over the rest? I submit that this country must solve that
  218
  dilemma somehow if wit, are to preserve our democratic life and principles.
  I am prepared further to admit to noble Lords opposite that we must solve one side of it—how to have independent initiative in ordinary technical questions—just as much as we must solve how to have public control of the technical decisions with social consequences. I submit that the doctrinaire hatred of nationalisation which is so apparent in almost all of the speeches of the noble Lords opposite is no more helpful than the doctrinaire belief in nationalisation which I freely admit can he found in the ranks of my Party. We have somehow to recognise both sides of that dilemma and try to bring them together. That is not easy. A mere denunciation of nationalisation of the kind we have heard in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Woolton, is no good, and the other belief that "nationalise and all will be well" is just as fatal.
  During the one portion of the debate I was able to attend earlier I heard the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton—I am sorry he is not here now—in one of his most eloquent, but, if I may say so, most unreal speeches. He has two kinds of speeches, the extraordinarily helpful kind and the other kind where his spectacles always seem to be in danger. The noble Viscount says that what the Government want is power. Of course; if you want control in the public interest you cannot control without power. If noble Lords opposite had said that the Government wanted all the power it the world, and power over the whole of industry, it would have been a different matter. Clearly, this dilemma as to how to have the necessary public control of the industry and leave the necessary initiative and invention to private enterprise, is presented in a very acute form in the iron and steel industry. Nobody can deny the great public power, in the sense in which I have used the expression, of the iron and steel industry; and nobody, I think, can deny its great diversity and its need for constant and renewed technical initiative.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBUAY: Does the noble Lord mean public control, or public ownership?
  LORD LINDSAY OF BIRKER: I am coming to that. I recognise that it is a very important point. This Bill is am

  219
  attempt to solve this dilemma in an interesting way. I do not think the noble Lord, Lord Woolton, paid any attention whatever to that aspect.
  LORD WOOLTON: Oh yes, I did.
  LORD LINDSAY OF BIRKER: It is an attempt to solve the dilemma by forming a holding Corporation which is to have the last word on public issues, and the companies within that framework are to be independent. I submit that the issue between us is not really public control or no public control, and not really private enterprise or no private enterprise; it is whether public control which most people believe to be necessary can be effected only by public ownership in the form proposed in this Bill, or whether it is already sufficiently provided for by the existence of a Steel Board or in other ways. The noble Lord, Lord Layton, with whom I have nearly always found myself in very great agreement, suggested in his speech in Committee that he had argued that control in this matter was superior to ownership. I had not heard his earlier speech, and with eager expectation I turned to Hansard. I am bound to say that I did not find any convincing argument on the matter at all.
  In my humble opinion, this crucial question has never been properly discussed by either side. If the Iron and Steel Federation had gone to the Government and said publicly, "You have already control over us in certain ways: how much more do you want? We are prepared to agree to this and that, and to the power and decisiveness you ask for," then we should have known where we were. I should have thought the Government very ill-advised to refuse an offer of that kind. They could have argued as much as they liked what details were necessary to get the control needed, and if it was clear that they could get it effectively through control without ownership, I think they should have agreed. But we have not heard that. I have heard practically no discussion about it. On the other hand, I am bound to say that I wish the Government had not confined themselves so much to generalisations on this subject.
  But if the dispute between control without ownership, and control by means of
  220
  ownership as prescribed in this Bill—which is a very interesting experiment of trying to combine the two things—really is, as I suspect, a question who is to have the last word in case of dispute, then I think the guardians of public policy should have it against the technical experts. I think ownership by a holding company is a way of ensuring the last word to the people who stand for public policy. Once you grant that last word, I applaud the efforts of the Opposition—leaving aside their general dislike of the Bill—for they have tried to ensure the greater independence of the companies. I think we have a great deal to learn in this very difficult problem. I believe some of the Opposition's Amendments would have helped, and I should have liked the Government to go much further in that direction. They went a good way, but they could have gone further towards meeting the proposals of the Opposition in that direction. I am sure that would have been worth doing. I sympathise with the efforts which the Opposition have been making to ensure real independence and responsibility within this framework.
  But with the fundamental Amendment passed at the instance of the noble Marquess who leads the Opposition, I have no sympathy whatever. When the noble Marquess assumes the role of the impassioned and convinced democrat, I feel slightly suspicious. I think he regards democracy, if I may be allowed to say so, from a far distance, perhaps reverentially.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: May I ask on what grounds the noble Lord formed that conclusion?
  LORD LINDSAY OF BIRKER: By listening to a number of the noble Marquess's speeches on the subject. The real issue between us, if it is as I have described it, is not a proper subject for a referendum. You would get no further if you obtained an answer to the referendum. I should have thought that noble Lords on the Liberal Benches, al least, would know that.
  4.28 p.m.
  VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: My Lords, we have all listened to an extremely interesting speech from the noble Lord; if he will permit me to say so, it would have been perfectly admirable in a lecture room—or perhaps even

  221
  in a post-mortem examination—but it appeared to me to be slightly irrelevant to a human problem, which is the real problem that we have to meet. I do not rise in the hope of being able to make any useful contribution to the discussion of the details of this Bill. Every line of it has 'been argued by experts, both in this House and elsewhere, and I have nothing to add to what they have said. My object is only to ask your Lordships to consider very carefully the foundation of the Government's industrial policy and, particularly nationalisation. It is not the detail of this or that industry in which I am most interested; I feel that it is of the utmost possible importance that we should have a policy which will heal the difficulties and distress that threaten us from the present condition of the industry, and it is only for that purpose that II venture to trouble your Lordships.
  So far as nationalisation is concerned, the case for it seems to me to have been rhetorical, rather than argumentative. It is said, for instance, that it is dangerous to leave so important an industry as this in the hands of private people. The noble Viscount, Lord Hall, has again said so to-day. The suggestion is that they will use it for some revolutionary or political purpose. I do not know whether that is seriously contended by anybody. No facts have been alleged to justify such a contention, and I myself believe that very few reasonable persons accept it. Then something has been said about the advantages of a classless society. So far as I can learn, there never has been a classless society in any country, and I think there never will be. No doubt it is possible to destroy any existing class, but only for it to be succeeded by another. You may get rid of landowners—or, to use the modern term, capitalists—but their place will be taken by officials and by an official class. I observe that some of the workers are already beginning to suspect this in reference to this nationalisation question. My noble friend said something about democracy. By far the most dangerous enemy of democracy is oligarchy, and I cannot help feeling that we are drifting towards an oligarchical situation in this country. I regard that with the very greatest apprehension. Oligarchy means bureaucracy, and bureaucracy means tyranny;
  222
  and bureaucratic tyranny is, in my view, the worst type of tyranny of all.
  It is sometimes said—it has been contended with regard to this Bill, and on others—that nationalisation is necessary in order to increase production. I do not think that has been seriously put forward, though it has hail a sort of resurrection in this debate. Everybody recognises that the steel industry is in a flourishing condition, and there has been no real suggestion that its position is threatened in any way or must be saved by nationalisation. The truth really is, as I see it, that the policy of nationalisation is attractive chiefly those who are moved by the feeling that it is unjust that one man should be richer than another. I do not share that feeling, nor do I believe that it is common among my fellow countrymen. Perhaps it is commoner abroad. Indeed, the whole case for nationalisation, to my mind, reeks far more of Continental thought than of British thought. We here do not regard officials as infallible, and we incline to the view that naturally those who have been brought up to the management of industry are more likely to succeed in it than are the planners of Whitehall.
  I do not want to be misunderstood. Is there then nothing wrong with the industry? Should we simply accept the situation, and sit back and do nothing? I am far from that opinion. In the first place, it is clear that in some trades there is considerable discontent. We have had plenty of recent evidence on the subject. And remember that strikes and lockouts generally mean the existence of far more difficulties than the actual dispute which is their immediate cause, especially if the usual efforts to appease that dispute have been tried. Broadly, a strike in any one of our leading industries must indicate a want of a sense of responsibility in those who have caused it, whether they be employers or employed. To my mind, if I may say so, that is where the noble Viscount's argument a little ignores the present condition of affairs. At this moment, when it is evident that our economic position is by no means secure, a strike must add greatly to our national difficulties.
  We all say that employers and employed are together engaged in a public task of great importance. But do we and they really believe that? I see

  223
  accounts of enormous crowds going to look on at cricket or racing, tennis or golf, and crowding to cinemas, and even some theatres. I observe that popular newspapers are more than half taken up with accounts of sports events, and with crimes of a terrible character. Side by side with these items of news, there are urgent appeals to those engaged in this or that trade to produce more and absent themselves less. Do not misunderstand me. It is not that I am the enemy of recreation—far from it. But I cannot help feeling that at the present moment—and to my mind this is the fundamental difficulty—very little interest in work for its own sake is taken by those engaged in it. And I do not wonder at it. In the average modern factory—I am not talking about any particular factory—the work must often be hideously dull, just watching some machine to see that it does its work regularly and smoothly. How is it possible for any worker to take pride in such employment? How immensely different from the old days of craftsmanship when every employee was something of an artist!
  No doubt much has been done to improve living conditions, outside work, and that is admirable. But work seems to grow less and less inviting in itself. The division of labour and the standardisation of products make modern industry more and more inhuman, and make man more and more a mere wage-earning machine. A great deal is said from time to time about increasing the incentives to work. That usually boils down to an increase of wages for the worker and profits for the employer—very desirable, of course, but it is a profound mistake to think that making money is the only, or even the chief, object for which a man works.
  I myself should say that perhaps the strongest human reason for activity is the desire to achieve something. In America, I have been told, men will often spend the first half of their lives in amassing wealth which in the second half they spend on some public object. Certainly, in the professions with which I am acquainted, I doubt whether men regulate their exertions by the amount they expect to receive for a particular job. But, strictly, the money motive is supposed to be the only incentive for the average factory worker. That is surely
  224
  a mistake. Nowadays in many cases a worker enjoys little human contact with his employer. He is just part of a machine. All the higher part of his nature, his heart and brain, are almost wholly ignored. Very little is done to interest him in the work as a whole and, so far as I can see, nationalisation will make these conditions still more inhuman.
  At the top there will be just a board, the members of which will be probably unknown to the employees, and they will be chosen by a still more distant authority lodged in Whitehall. Such a system seems to be not only debasing but extremely foolish. How can you expect people to do their best if you disregard all that is best in them? I shall perhaps be told that provision is made for representatives of labour to sit on the board—that is to say, that one or more members of the board are to be trade unionists selected and appointed by the Government. But that does not make them the real representatives even of the union, much less of the workers. The other day there was a debate on this question in a conference of an important union, the Transport and General Workers Union. That debate was of a very animated character, and the following Resolution was moved—I quote from the Daily Herald of July 15:
  "That this conference being very dissatisfied with the present position of many of the nationalised boards and executives demands that Trade Union representatives should be placed upon these boards and executives with the right of the members to recall such Trade Union representatives as and when considered necessary."
  The writer in the Daily Herald goes on to say:
  "The main argument of the mover, Mr. Edward David, a London transport worker, was that there was no actual Trade Union representation on these bodies in the true sense. The boards included some ex-Trade Union officials … but they were not union representatives."
  For myself, I would add that they seem even less to be representatives of the workers. The Resolution was vehemently opposed by Mr. Arthur Deakin, the general secretary of this union, whom I believe to be a very respectable trade union leader, but it was carried against him by 433 votes to 170 votes.
  I venture to draw attention to that incident because it seems to me important in considering the whole question of

  225
  nationalisation. I do not want to say anything against trade unions—indeed, I am not sure that I should not immediately incur the wrath of the noble Viscount, Lord Hall, if I were to do so. They may have been useful and even necessary counterweights to the excessive power of employers in the past. But the situation now is quite different, and there are many signs that by becoming as political as they are they have weakened their industrial position. I saw a report of a speech by a trade union leader the other day. It was an appeal to the workers to show more loyalty to their union and to behave with greater discipline—though, in my view, the appeal would have been better directed if it had asked for a greater sense of responsibility. But the speech ended with a great appeal to support "our Labour Government." That is surely a very unfortunate way of speaking. In political action is it not true that the trade unions are in danger of becoming no more than a part of the electoral machinery of the Labour Party? It is said that they provide a great deal of its funds, and we know that many trade union leaders have become Ministers of the Crown. There is no harm in that so far as the Administration is concerned, but what about the trade unions? Is it not inevitable that appeals and arguments by such trade union leaders will be regarded by their followers as political rather than industrial?
  I have seen the same kind of thing happen in other cases. I will instance one which, though it may not be very palatable to some noble Lords, is interesting. The Primrose League was originally instituted to advocate a certain Imperial policy; at first it had considerable success, but as time went on it became more and more closely identified with the Conservative Party and ceased to have any independent Imperial position. That is exactly what might happen to the trade unions. As industrial bodies they have a valuable function. If they become mere auxiliaries to the Labour Party, their industrial value will disappear. Do not think that I desire to weaken the position of the employees. On the contrary, I believe that the future of industry—nay, of the whole country—largely depends on the recognition by both employers and employed of the
  226
  responsibility of the latter in the conduct of industry.
  We have in this country carried the liberty of the individual further than it has been carried elsewhere. We have passed a series of great measures—trial by jury, the independence of judges, Habeas Corpus and ail the other provisions for the supremacy of the law; freedom of speech, the abolition of corruption and the enactment of universal suffrage. By these things we have destroyed privilege and achieved political liberty. It remains to carry those principles into the organisation of industry, not by planning and control, or by the increase of the power of bureaucracy, but by the creation of a spirit of co-operation among all workers, employers and employed in responsibility for what is in truth the safety, honour and welfare of our Sovereign and his Dominions.
  4.46 p.m.
  THE EARL OF HALIFAX: My Lords, it is one of the merits or at least the privileges of this House that it is able from time to time, on an occasion such as this, to elicit a speech such as that to which we have just listened from my noble friend. I doubt whether there are many other people in this House who could have made such a speech which, whether we agreed with it or not, was in the highest degree stimulating and replete with ripe wisdom gathered over many years. Like many other noble Lords, I was one of the silent participators in the Committee debates, and I heard many of the thirty-eight members of your Lordships' House who tock part. I was rather disappointed that I and the other silent members did not receive one of those bouquets that Lori Hall handed to all who had assisted the progress of the Bill, because I was certainly under the impression that I, no less than some others, had assisted the Bill. However that may be, I must confess to your Lordships that it has not left me any better qualified technically on the subject of steel, in the sense of being at all equipped to enter into the mysteries and profound arguments over which Try noble friend Lord Dudley, and others led by my noble friend Lord Swinton, moved so easily.
  But there are one or two reflections that I wish to make oil what seems to me a legitimate opportunity for a wider

  227
  review of all this business before the Bill finally leaves your Lordships' House. With all respect to the noble Lord, Lord Lindsay, it is all very well for him in the interesting speech he made to "set about" my noble friend Lord Woolton and to say that all this denunciation of nationalisation is irrelevant, unnecessary and off the real point, and that he is rather bored with it, and so on.
  LORD LINDSAY OF BIRKER: I did not say that.
  THE EARL OF HALIFAX: No; I was only paraphrasing the noble Lord's remarks. If I have paraphrased him amiss I shall be the first to apologise. But the general sense was that he did not think it of great importance. My answer is that he may well be right about that; but the reason why Lord Woolton and others who feel that way have to point out the error of nationalisation, is that it still seems to be a cardinal tenet of the creed of His Majesty's Government. If they were not such confirmed believers in nationalisation as such, it would certainly not be necessary to denounce it at all. To them, the process of nationalisation seems to be an indispensable element in the creation of the kind of State they wish to create. The noble Viscount, Lord Hall, said, I think, that it was an integral part of the establishing of a prosperous national economy.
  That is my justification, also, for saying one or two words about the subject, for that position seems to me to rest upon assumptions that are questionable. One assumption is that the only alternative to the old capitalism is Socialism. Another is that if the Profit motive—which we frequently hear condemned, at least as a primary incentive to effort—is wrong, the only way of eliminating or reducing it is by nationalisation. The third assumption is that the present form of nationalisation is the only method by which industry or services can be brought under effective public control. I was very glad to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Lindsay of Birker, had to say on those topics, because he, at least, recognises the strong feeling that exists that there is great need for impartial inquiry and examination. Certainly, I would suppose there could hardly be any member of the Government who would not feel that
  228
  in the light of the experience of the last four years there was great need to examine these and many other assumptions. There surely could be no greater contrast—and seldom is contrast more sharply exhibited—than that between the ideal picture that advocates of all this policy draw and the actual position as experience over years has revealed it.
  I think it is true to say that, from different angles, the vast majority of those concerned have pointed out the undesirable consequences that have attended on Government action. Those with special knowledge and experience of the control of industry have called attention to what they judge to be defects in the working of the nationalised industries. Consumers are painfully aware of the increased costs which affect not only them but our whole economy. The noble Viscount who spoke last had much of substance to say about the employee. Lord Woolton also had some strong things to say in that regard, because, apart from the point of view that nationalisation would impart a new quality to work, by reason of the fact that it would no longer be done for the private profit of any individual (incidentally, I imagine that that never loomed quite so large in the minds of the workers as has so often been represented) industrial workers, I believe, thought two things. They thought, first, that the conditions of their work, hours and rewards would be more agreeable. Secondly, they thought that they would have a much greater measure of control over the industry in which they worked. But, by all the evidence, the worker is not getting what he expected to get and is not very well satisfied with what he has obtained.
  It is no answer to say as the noble Viscount, Lord Hall said on the Second Reading, that if you took a plebiscite no one would suppose that the workers in these industries would ever declare themselves in favour of going back to the old position, I do not suppose they would. But that does not mean that they are content with the present position. Noble Lords on the Government Bench, haw much better evidence than I have about it, but even an outsider like myself has only to read what passed at Blackpool, what passes at many trade union conventions and conferences, and what is said in Parliament, to realise that the workers are not all very happy about the position.

  229
  I have been shown something that I suppose almost everyone except myself had seen before, but it is interesting to me. I do not overrate it. I have had put into my hands the result of a Gallup Poll taken at the end of last year among readers of the Railway Review, who, I understand, are largely drawn from the National Union of Railwaymen. Having lived in America for some time, I do not attach undue importance to the result of Gallup Polls, but they are perhaps interesting as showing general drifts. Among the questions put in this Poll was this: After a year of national ownership how do you find your job—more encouraging, about the same, or more frustrating? The number of people who were more encouraged was 9.7 per cent. Those who found their job about the same totalled 45.5 per cent.; those who found it definitely more frustrating were 44.8 per cent. You cannot contend that that is a very glowing result on the human side, if the object of reorganisation is to extend human happiness in industry.
  Much more significant than that, as the noble Viscount has said, is the large number of unofficial strikes. I put the dock strike by itself, and I do not deal with that, for clearly it stands on an entirely separate footing. I do not know whether noble Lords on the Government Benches will agree with this, but I have always judged it to be superficial and misleading to dismiss all these unofficial movements and strikes as the work of Communists or of irresponsible elements in industries. No doubt Communists have their fingers in any pie which they judge profitable, and no doubt there will always be irresponsible elements in industry. But when one has said all that, the British working man is not a fool; and I believe that, to a much greater extent than we always recognise, these strikes are an expression of dissatisfaction with the form that nationalisation has taken and of a general sense that the workers have been tricked in not getting either what they were led to expect or at least what they thought they were going to get. They have looked forward to conditions in industry being more agreeable, but the workers are still learning—and after a generation or two of false teaching the process of learning is inevitably slow—that economic laws retain their validity whoever is nominally the owner or
  230
  nominally the controller or manager. As all of us here know well, it is no more possible for the railways to be run in defiance of the relationship between earnings and costs because they are owned by the State than it would be if they were owned by private people. But that is a lesson that has not yet been learned.
  As regards control, which I think is the real question, the workers had expected to obtain a much larger share. The fact that they thought that larger measure of control would come to them by the elimination of private ownership brings me to what I believe to be one root of the trouble —namely, that a great deal of Socialist thinking about industry is out of date. That is a dreadful thing to say of a Party that judges itself to be the progressive Party in the State, but none the less I believe it to be true, in the sense that under a kind of "hangover" from the past, they have greatly exaggerated the part that capital plays in the actual control of modern industry In this age of great corporations, curiously enough, capital has a decreasing measure of control: the scale of industry is too vast and the complications too great. And in the majority of cases the power is not with the shareholders. They have, of course, the right—which they seldom use—to attend the annual meetings and make a row, but the power has been passing to a new managerial class of technical and directing experts. Therefore, when the workers expected to get control, they could not do that by getting rid of the shareholder, who had already lost most of the power he had.
  From the workers' point of view, the wrong element has been thrown out; the old capitalist who had not much power is gone and the old manager who had the power remains, although he is now saddled with a national Board composed of people who probably know much less about the job than he does and whose touch with the job is much less direct than that of the people they have supplanted. In his daily work the employee is much more conscious of the presence of the old manager than of anything else. He feels that "new presbyter is but old priest writ large." So far as he is conscious of the national Board he generally, and not unnaturally, distrusts it. The personal element has largely disappeared from it. The private employer may have been good or bad, but at east the workers

  231
  knew where he was, and where to get at him; and hp made decisions. The change-over from a system that was tangible and accessible to something that is impersonal and remote, and under which decisions have to be referred—is, I suspect, all very annoying, and frustrating to the chaps who have to work under it. All this cannot have been the intention of the Government—if mine is a true diagnosis—and it was certainly not the idea of nationalisation in the minds of most employees.
  But who in fact has benefited by it all? Certainly not the shareholders; they are slightly poorer on the whole, I think, for exchanging their shares for Government stock. Certainly not the employees, as I have tried to show. Certainly not the trade unions, whose bargaining power has surely weakened—whatever the noble Viscount, Lord Hall, may say—by the substitution of the State for private employer. Again, no benefit has accrued to the technologists and managers, who are in much the same position as they were, except that where they were accountable to the general shareholders they are now accountable to a national Board. I cannot see that much benefit has accrued to the State, which has always had, as the noble Lord, Lord Lindsay, said, an overriding interest in all industrial activities, and now finds that Ministers appear to disclaim the intention and right to interfere with the national Boards. I wonder where, at the end of the day, the State is going to come in.
  All that makes me ask: Is it therefore so certain that, even if the fundamental purposes of the noble Lords on the Government Front Bench are right—which I am entirely prepared to concede, much as I detest their methods—they have chosen the right way of trying to realise them. There are surely alternatives: the way of the co-operative; the way of co-partnership and profit-sharing, about which the noble Lords opposite have so frequently spoken. The noble Lord, Lord Lindsay, touched the point when he spoke about the connection between ownership and control, and I hoped he was going to say that the operation of the Iron and Steel Control Board was all right. He did go so far as to say that if they had gone to the Government and said they could see this amended in
  232
  this direction or that, we might never have heard of nationalisation. The noble Lord may think that, but I believe he is too optimistic.
  LORD LINDSAY OF BIRKER: I did not say that we should never have heard of it.
  THE EARL OF HALIFAX: Even so, I still think the noble Lord was somewhat optimistic. However, that may be, the broad facts surely stick out a mile. No one, right through all levels, is fully satisfied with this way of handling the situation. I cannot help believing that if the Government, when they were deciding on this policy four years ago, had had the experience which they have now accumulated, and if they had not had the label of nationalisation tied round their unhappy necks for many years, they would never have gone in for this form of policy at all. I may be too optimistic in saying that, but that is the conclusion to which I am driven. From the larger point of view it is clear that the result of this policy is to introduce a sharp division at a time when we want the greatest possible measure of unity. I know it is too much to ask the Government to suspend the passage of this Bill, but I do not think it is too much to ask that they should consider favourably once again the possibility of acceding to the terms of my noble friend Lord Salisbury's Amendment, as to the time-table of its operation. I should not think it was too much to ask them, in addition to doing that, in place of the further pursuit of a policy which is imperfectly achieving its ends, to invite men of all Parties, experienced in industry, to get together and advise them on the formulation of a policy that might really assist and not impede our national recovery.
  5.10 p.m.
  VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: My Lords, it is somewhat of an accident that I should follow the noble Earl, Lord Halifax, but I am glad to be able to tell him that I also will have a share in the same bouquets which he has awarded himself for having attended these debates without so far having spoken. I think, also, we should share our bouquets, and perhaps give even larger bouquets to noble Lords who have failed to turn up at all, and who have thus considerably helped in these debates!

  233
  There is one reason why I myself must rise to my feet at this moment. There was what amounted to a challenge put out by certain Conservative newspapers, and by various spokesmen—including, of course, the noble Lord, Lord Woolton, in this debate—in which it was suggested that some members of the Labour Party, including myself and the noble Lord, Lord Lindsay, who has already spoken, and other noble Lords on these Benches, were opposed to the Iron and Steel Bill. I have been conducting private inquiries since those remarks were made—I think it was in the Evening Standard—and I have not found one noble Lord on the Labour Party Benches who disagrees with the Government in this measure; in fact, I believe the only noble Lord who, from these Benches, disagreed with this measure is the noble Lord who had apparently joined the Labour Party without reading the Party Programme, although it had been written for a considerable time, and who left the Party very hurriedly on finding that Programme being put into effect.
  It has been argued that we should not have put this programme into effect, but that we should have thrown it away because of the crisis which is upon us. I believe the exact opposite to be true—and for this reason. This programme has been made out for two purposes, one of which is economic. This programme, which all holds together as a piece, is designed to fight off inflationary boom and disastrous slump; it is a full-employment programme. Suppose we consider an explorer marching through wild and dangerous country. Naturally we imagine that he arms himself with a rifle to deal with such ferocious beasts as may lie in his path. And suppose that these ferocious beasts appear before him. What does he do with the rifle with which he has armed himself? Does he fling it to the ground and run screaming away, or does he use it and march forward? I believe—and I am sure the Government believe—that this Iron and Steel Bill is one of the vital weapons which they have taken to protect themselves and the country in just the sort of circumstance in which we now find ourselves; and if we were to throw that weapon on the ground and run screaming away we would be running away from every ideal to which we are advancing. I personally would
  234
  not remain in the Labour Party a minute if we did that, and so far as my researches show that is the opinion of every member of the Labour Party I have succeeded in contacting.
  There is a further reason why we are putting through these measures and it is one on which I thought the noble Earl, Lord Halifax, touched very nicely. The fact is that there are political as well as economic reasons for this. The workers of the country want more control over the operations of the industries in which they work. You may say that abolishing the shareholder has no given them what they wanted. I agree. It was highly unlikely to give them what they wanted. But I think your Lordships will agree that until the shareholder is cleared out of the way they cannot proceed in the direction in which they want to go. They cannot possibly obtain the control in the industries where they want control before the shareholder has been removed. I thought the query about the Gallup Poll amongst the railwaymen, as to whether they were happier or less happy after one year of nationalisation, revealed just about the state of affairs I would expect after one year of nationalisation. Unfortunately, not being a house of prophets, we shall be unable for some little time to read the effect of the Gallup Poll after ten years of nationalisation; but when that time comes we may see some different opinions.
  Those are the reasons why this is being done, and I hope this policy will be continued, because until we have proper safeguards to prevent those disastrous "wobbles" in the economic state of this country which used to occur in the past, and until the workers in these industries have a greater interest in their work, I do not believe this country can proceed along the road on which we want to see it go.
  5.18 p.m.
  LORD BRAND: My Lords, I spoke on the Second Reading of this Bill, hut I should like to say a few further things to-day. Personally, I deplore this Bill, and I hope it never conies into force. I deplore it for the reason—the cogent reason, in my opinion—that it submits to Government ownership a kind of activity which it is very undesirable to submit to such ownership. I am the last to deny

  235
  the immense importance of the functions of Government in a modern State, or to assert that we can rely solely on laissez faire. But this Bill raises the fundamental question: What is the proper sphere of the State in modern society? Apart from the maintenance of internal order, law and justice, and control of foreign policy —which are the usual functions of Government—I put in the very centre of the picture control by the Government of our monetary, our currency and our exchange structure, the maintenance of the essential reserves of gold and currencies equivalent to gold, and the maintenance of financial and economic stability. I may say, however, in answer to the noble Viscount, Lord St. Davids, that this Bill has nothing whatever to do with the maintenance of economic stability.
  Noble Lords who have read President Truman's recent message to Congress will have a good idea of what I regard as the sphere of modern Government as regards economic affairs and the problems which modern Governments—and our Labour Government—ought to be considering at this moment. Heaven knows, they are difficult and important enough. In addition, of course, Governments have other functions—regulating physical and social conditions, ensuring minimum earnings, ensuring that free enterprise shall take account of social costs and the æsthetic interests of the country, though I must say that when I saw a plan of the new theatre which is to be built on the South Bank of the Thames, I wondered whether public authorities are really able to run our æsthetic life. The Government also have to ensure a not too glaring inequality in the distribution of the national income, though to stretch the principle of equality too far is completely disastrous.
  All these are vitally important functions, and no doubt the list could be extended. The proper performance of all of them would provide any Government with all the burdens they could possibly shoulder, and Parliament with all the responsibilities that it could possibly bear. Beyond that point, as I think we shall soon see, the more numerous the tasks given to the Government and to Parliament, the less attention can be given to them. In my opinion, we already see that Parliament cannot and will not be able to take much
  236
  interest in what happens to industries already nationalised, whether they are railways or other public utilities. But, of course, Socialism goes much further. How much further no one knows; and it is urgently necessary to determine. The answer will determine not only the economic, but the political and social character of this country and, above all, whether as a nation we are bound or free.
  To my mind it is curious, in view of the Socialist view of Communism, that they take as their example Russia. The Russian system is nothing but the Marxist policy of nationalisation of the means of production, distribution and exchange pushed to its limit. The more the Socialist Government nationalise, the nearer they will be to what they can hardly consider the very desirable end of getting a little closer to what the Russian system is.
  LORD PAKENHAM: I interrupt the noble Lord only for the purpose of elucidation. Does he mean that we take Russia as a model for ourselves, or as a model for Communism?
  LORD BRAND: I say that Russia has not got Communism. She has nationalisation to the hilt, plus a good deal of Russian barbarity. No doubt our system, if you nationalised everything, would be different, because Englishmen are different from Russians. But in other respects it would be completely the same.
  You have to consider, as you go along the path of nationalisation, how far you intend to go, and that is what I think it is very important to determine and tell the country. As I see it, the trade union world and the Labour Party have advocated nationalisation for years, not so much for its positive merits but, as my noble friend Lord Halifax said, for the negative merit of getting rid of the rich and powerful capitalist and redistributing their profits, though not their losses. But, so far as re-distribution of national income can be done without harm, it has been done, and more than done now. Moreover, the rich and powerful capitalists do not exist—or barely exist. As my noble friend Lord Halifax said, numerous small shareholders have taken their place—shareholders who, of course, perform an invaluable function.

  237
  I would like to give your Lordships a figure which I saw only a few days ago in the London and Cambridge Economic Service which, as the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, knows, is a very admirable and dependable service. It was stated there that in 1938 sur-tax payers received about 8 per cent. of the net personal national income of the country—net after payment of taxation. They now receive, according to that estimate, 1½per cent. Therefore, as your Lordships will see, the "robber barons" and the rich capitalists have been disposed of—whether for the good of the country or not remains to be seen.
  When you do not give sufficient rewards for the intelligence, the brains, the energy and the initiative of the country, various unfortunate things may after a time happen. But while the old reasons for nationalisation have thus largely disappeared, a few new ones have taken their place. One difficulty is to know what they are, and I think my noble friend Lord Lindsay—who I am sorry is not present—felt the same difficulty, I regarded his speech, although I am not sure he knew it. as a speech against the Bill. He made a mistake, however, in stating that this was a very interesting experiment, where you had a Government Board at the top and a lot of independent companies underneath. They will not be independent at all. Noble Lords know perfectly well that those who control the finance can, in the end, control the operations of any company, and that those boards—as the noble Lord, Lord Woolton, said—which now feel free to do this and that, because they are risking the shareholders' money, having been put there to do so, will no longer feel that liberty. They know that the finance is in other hands, and that where the finance lies the responsibility lies. Therefore, they will not he free, and the situation will be totally different from what is existing to-day.
  I understand that the arguments of responsible advocates of nationalisation are something as follows: first, that if an industry is monopolistic, it should be nationalised. My view is that if an industry is monopolistic you should treat it as the Americans treat monopolistic industries. You should have a Sherman Anti-Trust law, and see that the monopoly is not run against the public interest. I do not consider that the right
  238
  course to take is merely to create another and bigger and more complete monopoly, particularly when that monopoly will not in fact be subject to any real control by Parliament and the public will not know as much about it as they know now about the monopolies (if they exist), or the semi-monopolies in this country. A second argument is that if the product of an industry is fundamental to the interests of the community, as steel is, then it should be nationalised. But what is not fundamental to the interests of the community? What about food? Food is absolutely fundamental to the interests of the country. Why should not farming be nationalised for the same reason? The question is begged as to whether, when the State has taken over such an industry, it will produce any more efficiently than a private industry.
  A third argument is the strategic argument that private employers cannot be trusted to see that enough of this or that is produced, like steel. That seems to me to have no foundation at all. If you give a private industry order; at a price which enables it to cover costs and make a profit, it will produce, Dr at any rate be just as able to produce as the Government. Neither will be able to produce unless the raw materials are there: if they are there, both will be able to produce. A fourth argument, I think, is that where an industry is vital to a community and is not in a position to function for lack of money, the Government must take it over. Perhaps I do not tread on anybody's corns if I quote B.O.A.C. as an example. But to take over is not the only alternative; you can subsidise an infant industry, as other countries do, and personally I think, with respect to the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, that that might be the better thing to do.
  I believe, as do other speakers, that the driving force at the baod of all nationalisation (so as it is riot. as the noble Earl, Lord Halifax, said, a hangover from the past—and that it very largely is) remains in large part the desire to dispossess and to attack those now in control. Moreover, almost every Government function such as the ones I mentioned earlier, seems to most people prosaic or uintelligible. All that Sir Stafford Cripps has to deal with is, I think, largely unintelligible to the ordinary voter—and perhaps I might even go higher than him.

  239
  But taking over hundreds of companies and destroying a great organism such as the steel industry, over which the Government already possess all the control they ought to need, and dispossessing the owners—that is something real. You can see what you are doing. No difficult problem arises like foreign exchanges. Such action as nationalisation has an appeal to various motives—some of them not too magnanimous. But in this case it is immensely destructive.
  May I refer briefly to one further argument, perhaps the most common and the most seductive to the average voter? It is common to say to him, "Do you want steel produced for profit or for use? Do you want it to be the interests of the whole community or of a few shareholders? Do you want it produced by the people, in the form of a National Board, or by steel-masters?" Of course, his answer is likely to be, "I want to see steel produced for the community." But the questions are in fact meaningless: everything is produced for use. Take a farmer: what does he do? He produces for use. Of course, he must make a profit sometimes and he must make a loss sometimes. If he goes on making a loss he will stop producing. It is exactly the same with a steel company; all steel companies produce for use. They produce to sell. We all know what they do with the produce: they purchase raw materials, pay taxes and build up reserves. They also remunerate all their partners. All are partners in the business —wage-earners, salaried staff, managers and shareholders. I repeat that all these are partners and not enemies. Dividends are not blood-sucked away from other partners by parasites, any more than wages and salaries are blood-sucked away from shareholders. Dividends are necessary, both to pay shareholders interest on their capital and as a reward for risk. The shareholders must have this reward if there are to be savings, just as much as the wage-earner, and one serious danger in this country is that there are going, to be too few personal savings.
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer has said that a nationalised industry need not make profits. That I regard as a fallacy. A nationalised industry has to earn interest on capital; it has to provide for depreciation and to build up reserves out of undistributed profits, to meet losses and
  240
  to provide for expansion. Therefore it has to make profits. It may borrow at a lower rate than that at which other industries can usually borrow, but that is only because it has Government credit behind it; and the more Government credit is used and the bigger the amount of Government securities on the market, the lower the credit of the Government will be. The only question of real economic significance which arises is this: Will the nationalised industry produce more and more valuable products at less human effort? All experience is to the contrary. Without competition every institution puts on fat. Competition is required as a spur and guide.
  In this connection I should like to ask the Government a question which I have not seen answered and which I think is a very important one. Can coal or steel Boards, without competition to help them, settle what price they charge for the coal or steel they produce? What yardstick will they invent by which price is to be determined by the National Board? Under competition both price and quality are settled in the competitive struggle. How does a non-competitive industry settle its prices? How does it settle the price of coal? Is it to he partly settled by pressure one way one week, and then by pressure for higher wages from the workers who have the advantage of knowing that they have the taxpayer behind them? But what if American coal is much cheaper for American industry? What if Polish coal can be landed here much cheaper than British coal can be produced? What do the national Board do then? How do they settle price? What is their principle and their yardstick? This is an immensely important question and I have not yet seen an answer to it. It is very easy for a national undertaking to rely on the taxpayer.
  I hesitate to refer to a question which everyone knows about, but I was struck the other day by reading in The Times the report of an interview given by the Minister of Food in Nairobi after going to see the ground-nut scheme. He said:
  "Of course, the original White Paper was only an idea and not a rigid programme."
  Well. I suppose a White Paper may be taken as more or less the equivalent of the prospectuses which private firms have to issue to the public, when they want money. My long experience in that

  241
  sphere tells me that you have to be meticulously careful that your original prospectus is not just an idea You cannot go back when you have lost the whole of their money and say to your investors, "We have lost your money but it cannot be helped. The prospectus was not really a thought-out thing; it was just an idea." I see from Sir John Barlow's report in the Manchester Guardian, he having just gone to East. Africa, that the idea has cost £25,000,000 at present, is costing £1,000,000 a month and has not produced the ground-nuts, but is going to produce cattle. I raise that point merely to show that, when one accuses the Government of having no elasticity, one is wrong! The Government have great elasticity in the making of losses. These are losses, I might point out, which would have put in the bankruptcy court almost the strongest company in England. As it is, none of us cares about it; but the loss is there all the same, and the taxpayer pays for it.
  I do not claim that there are great disadvantages in nationalising standardised public utilities functioning inside this island, though here I would say that I prefer the American system. No one would suggest that we should go back to private enterprise to post our letters.
  A NOBLE LORD: Why not?
  LORD BRAND: Because the Government do it reasonably well, at least so far as we know. It might be done much better—I do not know. But, when we come to the more industrial undertakings of the Post Office—for instance, telephones—anybody who has experience of the American system knows that the American telephones are infinitely superior to those here. That may be due to handicaps about which I know nothing, but I take the facts as I know them. Much more is known also, in my opinion, by the public about the operation of the American Telegraph and Telephone Company—that enormous company—by its publications than is known about the operations of the telephone department of our Post Office. The American Telegraph and Telephone Company controls 80 per cent. of the telephones in the United States. It owns some 25,000,000 telephones. Although the company is more or less a great monopoly—though it has competition--it is kept in order by the supervision of the Federal Govern-
  242
  ment, and by the franchises and regulations of all the State Governments. I believe that the Department of Justice is in fact bringing an action against the company under the Anti-Trust Act. Why cannot we follow this example of dealing with great industries? Why cannot the iron and steel industry he left as it is with such expert control as exists now? The Government should be regulating such industries and not owning them. My own view is that it is wrong that the Governrnent should actually o n the competitive and exporting industries of this country. If we were a closed economy, if we needed no exports and had no dealings with the outside world, if we did not mind living in a bureaucratic State with a comparatively low standard of life, we might nationalise steel and many other things with much more equanimity than now. But we are at the opposite end of the Pole. We must have low costs to export. We must see that the nationalised industries produce as low as, or even lower than, private industry.
  How shall we do it? How are the Government to control this vast complicated industry, many of their products entering into the export trade? Who supposes that the British Government themselves can become exporters and salesmen of the enormous number of products produced by the steel industry? I must confess that, as I have listened to the debate in this House, I have asked myself, as many others may have done, why we are discussing this Bill at all. Is this the moment when vie can throw into confusion our greatest industry? Are the Government so unburdened with problems that they can add another one to their back which is already breaking under the strain? What has this Bill to do with our real and frightening problems? Nothing except to add to them. We want to become less rigid, not more rigid we want to liberate the natural energies of free enterprise, in co-operation where necessary with the Government, not bind them still more, by full Government control. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was right when he said that the circumstances to-day are not those of 1931. They are much more dangerous. To my mind, the circumstances of our nation, of our 50.000.000 people living on this small island, are such that we can live only by giving free rein to all the native energies of the population, and that

  243
  we can keep costs down only by competition. Our problem cannot he mastered at all if we think, as this Bill does, in terms of concentrating all authority and energy in Whitehall, or in Boards subordinated to Whitehall.
  5.46 p.m.
  LORD PAKENHAM: My Lords, noble Lords have, very properly, if I may say so, in a most interesting way taken the opportunity of affirming their fundamental convictions on a great number of matters, some closely related to the Bill which we are discussing and some a little more remote. I think we have all enjoyed the speeches that have been made. Like other noble Lords on this side, I always follow the speeches of the noble Lord, Lord Brand, with particular attention. If I may put it this way, we are attracted by his long record of public service, by his intellectual elevation and by his charm and style. But I am afraid that we decline to accept him, as he is sometimes accepted by noble Lords opposite, as immortal and infallible. In our view, noble Lords opposite are inclined to regard him as a village cricket team might regard their umpire whom they take round to local matches and upon whom they can rely at critical moments to raise his finger against the opposing batsman. Sometimes I am bound to say he raises his finger before there has been an appeal, as in the case of food subsidies and the health services, which noble Lords opposite have not openly opposed: but in this case the appeal has been most vociferous and the noble Lord has raised his finger in a magisterial manner.
  Before replying with care, though briefly, to the remarks of noble Lords, may I turn with equal brevity, in view of the hour, to one or two other speeches that have been made? The noble Lord, Lord Rennell, sang what might be called the "last song of Liberalism." It was a fine dirge which Mr. Gladstone, if he had been present, would have applauded; but few of us on this side could relate it to the Bill. May I turn to the noble Lord, Lord Woolton? There is one thing that I do accept from him, as we all do. He asked us to believe that he was passionately and sincerely opposed to this Bill. I am sure we all recognise his passion and sincerity in regard to this
  244
  Bill but, if the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil of Chelwood, is going to rebuke some of the speakers on our side for being rhetorical—and if we were not rhetorical he was inclined to pack us back to the lecture room at Oxford!—I feel that the noble Lord, Lord Woolton, comes under the most severe censure, because his remarks would undoubtedly have been received with resounding cheers by a large gathering of Conservative ladies in the Albert Hall. No one will question that, and why should he be ashamed of it? The noble Lord is proud of it. I only venture to suggest that he repeats the same speech on the next occasion and does not inflict on them a speech which I know he has in his mind—some kind of detailed examination of the present Bill—because I am bound to say that none of us on this side thought he came at all close to the measure before the House.
  LORD WOOLTON: I think it is a great pity that you did not see the importance of it. I was endeavouring to say that what you are trying to do by this Bill is to ruin England. If you have not seen it, then I can do nothing more.
  LORD PAKENHAM: Perhaps the noble Lord could try once more and could return to the theme on another occasion and explain it a little more closely, and in closer relation to the measure before the House. However, it is not for me to comment on the noble Lord's speeches, because they are his own, as indeed are the speeches of all of us. But in passing I would like, without impertinence, to refer to the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Halifax, in which I think we were all very much interested. It seemed to me that much of what he said related to all kinds of industry, and to many kinds of societies, and he placed his finger on many of the present-day difficulties. But I do not think he said anything particularly damaging to nationalisation. He took the view that the workers of this country were disillusioned about nationalisation. As to that, I will make only two points. I can repeat, in the first place, what the noble Viscount, Lord Hall, said when he pointed to the remarkable fact that the Government had not lost a by-election. If there were this widespread disillusionment, it is curious that it should not show itself at the polls. May

  245
  I make one further remark on that subject, from personal observation? I am responsible, and have been for the last year, for a nationalised industry—namely, civil aviation—and in civil aviation I find the greatest possible keenness. I have moved about from one place to another and indeed from one part of politics to another, and I think I can say that I have never found anywhere such enthusiasm and fervour as is found in civil aviation, which is a nationalised industry. I can only offer that personal remark to the noble Earl.
  May I now come to the general arguments for and against the Bill? I will not argue to-day the general case for nationalisation against private enterprise. There may be an opportunity, if it is desired, to go into that during the general economic debate on Monday. I think noble. Lords opposite sometimes seek to prove too much. They are inclined to seek to prove that nationalisation can never work, and they seem to assume that we believe that nationalisation will always work. Of course, we assume no such thing. We study it in relation to each particular industry. That was why I ventured to interrupt the noble Lord, Lord Woolton, to ask about the quotation from the Lord President of the Council, because I feel sure that he has in no way changed his ground. I naturally cannot place my finger on the particular words he used on that occasion, but from something that the noble Lord, Lord Rennell, said, I take it that the remark quoted was a statement by the Lord President of the Council that nationalisation in relation to any particular industry would be regarded as a matter of efficiency, or words to that effect; that each industry would be approached on its merits. The noble Lord, Lord Woolton, was under the impression that the Lord President had said that an industry would not be nationalised if it was efficient already. Of course, it could be nationalised if, by nationalising it, it would be made more efficient. I am seeking to clear that point up and to emphasise that we still stand on what the Lord President said—namely, that efficiency must always be taken as the test.
  I would like now to come to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Brand. They seem to suggest that he is still under
  246
  a misapprehension about the kind of nationalisation we are introducing. I am bound to say that he did not seem to be under quite so fundamental a misapprehension at this stage as during the Second Reading, when he talked about the Government themselves conducting the industries. But even to-day, if I understood his words right, he was asking the House "Suppose, For instance, that the Government themselves become exporters and salesmen." So I feel he is under a misapprehension that the Government themselves are proposing to run these industries.
  I should have thought that those of us who had participated, whether vocally or silently, in the discussions on this Bill—and I know the noble Lord has been with us at times, and I am not suggesting the contrary for a moment—were all pretty clear that the Government have no such purpose in view; that it should be the Corporation that runs his business and the Government or Minister responsible will make sure that the business is run in a way that conforms with the public interest. I beg the noble Lord, Lord Brand, to disembarrass his mind of that particular misconception.
  I challenge the suggestion that nationalisation is necessarily and particularly unsuited to competing in export industries. In spite of what at has been said about the coal industry—and I do not consider it was very accurately said—I do not think anyone in this House seriously believes that we ought to go back on the nationalisation of coal or that it was wrong to nationalise coal at the beginning. It has never been seriously put to us in this debate from the other side, although they may be pointing to difficulties which they feel have arisen. Whatever may be said about coal, civil aviation, if I may go back to my awn industry, is very competitive indeed. You could not get a more competitive industry and I do not think anybody seriously suggests—though I do not quite follow Lord Brand's line of thought about it—that you could hand over civil aviation to private enterprise.
  We try to apply the test of efficiency in each particular case, and when we come to the iron and steel industry there are a great number of arguments and very many ways in which the same argu-

  247
  ments can be stated. I would select for the moment three arguments and try to develop them briefly, alongside the reply, so to speak, that the noble Lord, Lord Brand, was giving us to arguments that he had formulated on our behalf. First, there is undoubtedly an argument that may be called political. I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lindsay, that there is nothing disreputable in a political motive. We are all politicians here, or trying to be, and therefore I do not see why we should be censured for entertaining a political motive.
  But I would mention three arguments for the Bill, and the first I would call political, not in the sense that we are out to grab power for some disreputable purpose of our own, but in the sense that the political reason springs from a particular political phase Under this political heading we believe that national prosperity depends upon national planning, and that no coherent national plan can ever be guaranteed while the far-reaching key industry of iron and steel remains the property of private enterprise Noble Lords may think that, taken by itself, that is an argument which does not bear closely on the efficiency of the iron and steel industry, but I mention it as one of the arguments which we take together in reaching a decision. Secondly (and here we come to the economic reason) we believe that the technical necessities of this particular industry—the concentration, it may be, on the more efficient plants, the countless adjustments between particular interests, the huge reconstruction involved, and various kinds of State assistance—clearly point to the need for unified ownership of the industry in order to make it more efficient. Once you are going to set up a single body that owns the industry, it is unthinkable that that single body should be any single group of citizens; it can only be the people of the country as a whole.
  Now I come to the third reason—and this to my mind is the overwhelming argument, and I hope that the noble Marquess, if I may venture to say so, will reply to this point in particular when he winds up the debate for the Opposition, because I have taken some pains to draft it in the way that seems to me to be most conclusive. There are various other ways of putting it but to me this seems the most conclusive way. This
  248
  industry, through no one's fault but through the technical nature of the case, is a giant nation-wide monopoly. It seemed to me that the noble Lord, Lord Brand, with his great knowledge of this subject, skated very rapidly over this main point. If I understood him correctly he said, "Do not turn it into another monopoly. Do not let it remain a monopoly at all. Break it up."
  LORD BRAND: I never said, "Break it up." What I said was that you have a Commission on Monopolies and Restrictive Practices and they can consider the steel industry and consider how best it should be run. They can consider what is the best way in which the Government can give their assistance in their share of the regulation and so on, and arrive at a solution where there is cooperation between private enterprise and the Government; to my mind, that is infinitely better than complete Government ownership.
  LORD PAKENHAM: I think the noble Lord referred to the Sherman Law.
  LORD BRAND: Yes, I did.
  LORD PAKENHAM: I am sorry if I misrepresented the noble Lord. I am sure that he knows that I would not willingly do so. His purpose, as I gather, would be to leave the industry as a monopoly and to relate it in some way to Government control.
  LORD BRAND: I do not admit that it is a complete monopoly. I believe there is a great deal of competition within the steel industry. I would not like it thought that I accept the view that it is a complete monopoly. I do not think it is.
  LORD PAKENHAM: And we have no reason to think that there will not be a substantial degree of competition in the future. I was interested in trying to discover what the noble Lord thought about the industry. I gather from what he has just said that he would now turn for advice, before any steps were taken, to the Monopolies Commission. We regard this as a matter—it has been threshed out time and again, and the conclusions which have been reached have been made plain—where the decision must rest with the Government. It

  249
  would be quite impossible to leave the final decision or the conclusive view to a body of the kind which the noble Lord suggests. And now I would beg the noble Lord, Lord Brand, to follow me closely. I feel that it is just conceivable that, in spite of his life-long antagonism to nationalisation, he may realise that there is a case here.
  If I may digress for a minute, may I say that I remember that the noble Lord once wrote a little book called, The Case against Socialism. The noble Lord has been stating that case ever since in various ways, all of them well phrased; but the point, surely, is that there is no reason whatever in this case to suppose that left to itself the steel industry's pursuit of its private interest would maximise the public interest. There is no reason to suppose that its private and public interest would coincide.
  The noble Lord was critical of those who asked people whether they wanted to produce for profit or for use. He seemed to assume two things which are not necessarily the same. Even if one accepted—as I do not—the noble Lord's view of the operation of the price system, in the best style of Adam Smith, in relation to competitive industry, those economists who taught the noble Lord and myself have never claimed that private interest and public interest would necessarily coincide. The noble Lord, Lord Layton, is not with us so I will not quote him at length, but it is well known that he is an opponent of the Bill. He said: "It is common ground that the industry must obey orders." So Lord Layton is under no illusion that the private pursuit of the industry's own interest and the achievement of the public interest would necessarily coincide. Without labouring, the point further, I think we all agree that there is a necessity for a considerable degree of State supervision. The only issue is between a privately-owned and a publicly-owned company, both in any case supervised by the State. That is the only issue between us, and I hope that when he speaks the noble Marquess will confirm that that is so.
  But, my Lords, when we talk of control or supervision in this case, we are not talking merely of the kind of control or supervision which is extended to many
  250
  private industries at the present time. Inevitably, it goes much further than that in relation to the general plan, though, as we have explained so often, there is no question whatever of interfering in the detailed management. The Iron and Steel Federation have pointed out in an excellent booklet the merits of what they call the recent system under which, in their words: "the broad policy decisions were made by a public Board responsible to the Minister." They applaud that system. But once you go so far as that you cannot stop there. The system of control through the Iron and Steel Board was always regarded by the Government as temporary and transitional. For what it comes down to is this; in the last resort you can exercise a negative control over some else's property, but you cannot exercise a positive and creative and continuing influence over some one else's property.
  As my right honourable friend the Minister of Supply has emphasised from the beginning, under that system the industry and the individual producers can be told what not to co and, in most matters, what they must do. That situation is unavoidable so long as control and ownership are in separate hands. No controller—perhaps the noble Earl, Lord Dudley, will support at any rate this fraction of the argument—ean ever order an owner to spend money which he does not want to spend, even where it is essential in the national interest that he should do so. Therefore, once you carry control to the point where main policy decisions are to be made by a body responsible or responsive to the Government, you are forced by every logical and technical consideration to go further. When control reaches this point you can no longer divorce it from ownership.
  I therefore say that this is the main argument for nationalising the iron and steel industry—though there are a number of other arguments which have been put by my noble friends far more forcibly than I could put them. You have got to carry control a long way, and once you go so far as that you are conferring responsibility upon the Government which they can discharge effectively and adequately only if ownership is transferred to the hands of the community at large and the Government are allowed to act unimpeded in discharging their duties as a national trustee.
  VISCOUNT ADDISON: My Lords, before the noble Viscount who is due to speak next rises, may I intervene to say a word as to the course of our proceedings this evening? There is a considerable amount of Business for the House to get through after this Bill has been dealt with. It has therefore been arranged, I believe to meet the general convenience, that the House will adjourn for an hour at 7.30 p.m.
  6.10 p.m.
  VISCOUNT CALDECOTE: My Lords, I have hesitated very much to take part in this debate at all, and my hesitation has been much increased as a result of listening to the speeches which have been made this afternoon. I promise your Lordships that I will be brief. The noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, has said that we are to judge this matter of nationalisation not on whether industry is inefficient now but on whether it will be more efficient after nationalisation. That, I am sure, is the real question. Surely the first thing that is essential to increase efficiency is that there should be harder work by all concerned, with more, not less, initiative. If noble Lords opposite think that under nationalised industry there will be more hard work done and more initiative displayed, I am sure that anyone who has had any experience of the Civil Service, or of any Government controlled concern, will not agree with them.
  The next essential is that there shall be quick and good decisions. The same men, so the Government hope, will be in control after nationalisation as are there now. Presumably they will be no better, because there is no place from which to get better men. What about quickness of decision? Everybody who has had any dealings with Government-run industry will agree that decisions by Departments take longer than in privately-run concerns. So we shall not have more rapid and better decisions.
  The need for good relations between management and men has already been stressed by the noble Earl, Lord Halifax. Surely the most important thing there is personal touch and loyalty from top to bottom and back again. Is it more likely that we shall get personal touch and loyalty when the boss is in Whitehall and the men are in Sheffield, than when, as now, employees can go to the works council table and talk to the boss, and
  252
  know that he can give a decision now or next week, and not in three months' time, after letters have come back from Whitehall? If we are to have men working happily, there must be conditions to suit all tastes. In a commercial undertaking, when one of the best men leaves to go to a competitor, it is possible to get another man in a few days to replace him. Then we have two men content. But it is bound to happen in the long run in a nationalised industry, whether we leave the firms nominally independent or not, that all the concerns will come to the same conditions of employment, so that a man will not be able to leave one concern to go to another to find conditions where he is happy. So we shall have discontent. Then we need good equipment. The industry is already re-equipping itself according to a plan which the Government have approved. The limitation on that re-equipment is surely not anything the industry is doing, but the physical incapacity of the country to undertake the re-equipment. So there will not be any improvement in that respect. The plan is there already, but the ability to carry it out is not.
  On these considerations, the balance of the argument indicates that after nationalisation the industry will be not only not more efficient but actually less efficient The fallacy under which those who support nationalisation labour is that they believe the wicked steel makers are not to be trusted to do anything in the national interests if it conflicts with their own interests. Surely that is as outmoded as the old Socialist theory that exports do not matter. The steel makers are just as patriotic as the noble Lords on the Government Front Bench. Moreover, the country's interests are surely their interests. If the country goes down we all sink or swim together, and they go down as much as anybody else—perhaps more, since they have more to lose. Another fallacy is that of an omniscient Government—that Government planning is necessarily good planning. Apart from all the difficulties I have mentioned, just because the industry is nationalised planning will not necessarily be, and almost certainly will not be, 100 per cent. efficient. The shipbuilding industry still remembers the time when 2,000,000 tons more steel than actually existed were allocated to it—not because the steel industry unexpectedly failed to produce the

  253
  steel, but it was never there and nobody thought it would be.
  One can only come to the conclusion that the reason why the Government are nationalising this industry is to hold power, unless it can be—I cannot believe it is, but I have heard it suggested—because the industry is efficient, and will make good profits which may off-set some of the losses on other nationalised industries. I am afraid it is rather a vain hope, but I hope that the Government will take the advice of the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, and allow the date to he put back, so that the people may have an opportunity to judge again, in the light of the information that has come forward in the debates in another place and in your Lordships' House. I do not share the view of the noble Lord, Lord Lindsay, who, if I followed him rightly, seemed to think that the people were not qualified to judge the issue. I think they are, and I think they ought to be given the chance, so that if as may well happen—and the Government think it may happen—a Conservative Government repeal this measure the industry may be saved much of the inevitable disturbance.
  6.16 p.m.
  VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My Lords, the House will very soon proceed to a decision as to the passage of this Bill. That decision will necessarily follow from the decision that was taken on the Second Reading. On that occasion, both from the Conservative Benches and from the Liberal Benches, strong opposition to the principle of the Bill was expressed. Nevertheless, it was thought proper that this House should not reject it on Second Reading, but should pass the Bill through its stages with the addition of an Amendment which would ensure that it would not come into operation until after the date of the next General Election. This Bill was not conspicuously before the people at the last General Election; in fact, little was heard of the proposal. Since then, and on its introduction, it has been found highly contentious, it has been strongly opposed, it has received little popular support, and it is right that, with an Election imminent, it should be referred to the opinion of the country. At the next Election it could for the first time become a prominent issue. With these considerations in mind, your Lord-
  254
  ships passed the Second Reading, and since then the Bill has spent many long days and hours in the Committee and the Report stages. I would pay a tribute to the indefatigable industry during those stages of the members of the Front Opposition Bench and those sitting behind them. Noble Lords on these Benches have also contributed, particularly my noble friend Lord Rennell, who has been untiring in his efforts to improve the Bill.
  The noble Viscount, Lord Hall (I am sorry not to see him in his place at the moment), said that the consequence of this co-operation was that the Liberal Party had been swallowed by the Conservatives like Jonah by the whale. If he had said the Liberal Nationals, I should agree, for in fact that simile has many times occurred to me. Sometimes when I have heard the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, prognosticating in somewhat sepulchral tones, I have remembered that we are told that Jonah spoke from the belly of the whale. But that noble Lord is not aware that the process of deglutition has been completed and the process of digest on is very far advanced. We observe these facts as we remember the similar case of the Liberal Unionists in a previous generation, who were swallowed up and disappeared for ever, and we beware accordingly. I can assure the noble Viscount, Lord Hall, and any others who are interested, that this alliance between the Benches above and the Benches below the gangway is purely temporary and ad hoc, relating only to this Bill on which our views coincide.
  If this Bill is to be referred to a General Election, it is right that this House, performing its functions as a revising Chamber, should make it as good as it can make it, in order that, if the people should accept the Bill, it should reach the Statute Book in as little harmful a shape as may be. Since the House has taken so much trouble on Second Reading, in Committee and on the Report stage of the Bill, it would obviously be unreasonable to throw it out on Third Reading. But if in another place the Amendments should be rejected, and particularly that which provides for the postponement of the date of the operation of the Bill, then other stages may follow and it may be that your Lordships will then take a somewhat different attitude.

  255
  It is not merely on the strict merits of this individual Bill that our action is taken. We regard this as a test case in a controversy which has become one of the central issues in our politics—that is to say, whether the nationalisation of our principal industries is a matter not only of ensuring more effective administration in any one particular case, but as a matter of general policy. On two previous occasions I have quoted the declared Objects of the Labour Party, in which they say they regard the socialisation of the principal industries as one of their objects. It is there stated, and that is more important than the observations of any particular Minister, even if he is so distinguished as the Lord President of the Council.
  I understood Lord Pakenham to say in the course of his speech that the Conservatives—I think he included the Liberals —did not regard any nationalisation as legitimate, and that they are against nationalisation altogether as a matter of principle. That clearly is not so—certainly not of the Liberals, and it has not been so of various of the Conservatives. They may speak for themselves, but I would mention, incidentally, that one of the few constructive measures for which they have been responsible during the present century has been the law establishing the Electricity Commission and Board and the Electric Grid throughout the country, a very valuable measure which was one of pure nationalisation. They were responsible, also, in greater degree than others, for the passage of the London Transport Act. The Liberals, for their part, established in years gone by the Port of London Authority in place of the various Companies, and they supported the nationalisation of the railways at the last Election and, in this Parliament. the nationalisation of the mines and the gas industry. Therefore, it is not the case that there is now any Party in this country, as there was in the nineteenth century among the advocates of laissez faire, who reject in principle and in all respects the intervention of the State in industry, or even the ownership by the State of various industries.
  On the other hand, it is the case that the Labour Party have fallen into exactly the same error as the advocates of laissez faire—namely, that of adopting a sweeping generalisation. They have held the
  256
  view that because laissez faire was wrong, therefore the opposite must be right; and if it is wrong to say, "Nationalisation, never," therefore it is right to say, "Nationalisation, always." That, of course, is an obvious fallacy, but they are slipping down that slope. It is that that we regard as the great danger of this Bill, because it is the first time that this difference of principle emerges clearly into the open, and it is the first instance where it is quite evident that the claims of abstract economic theory clash with reality.
  VISCOUNT ADDISON: I hesitate to interrupt the noble Viscount. I have been following him as closely as I could, as I always do. What is the difference of principle to which he refers?
  VISCOUNT SAMUEL: I am afraid I must have been very obscure, although I try not to be I have said it three times over. The difference of principle is that in the Objects of the Labour Party it is stated that they are aiming at the socialisation of the means of manufacture, production, distribution and exchange. That is stated among the prime objects for which they exist, as a matter of principle. My assertion is that they are endeavouring to apply this principle, in spite of the fact that harm may be done to the particular industry and to the country. On the other hand —I cannot speak for the Conservative Party—the Liberals hold that each case must be judged upon its merits. We do not hold the principle of laissez faire, that never should any industry be nationalised; nor do we hold the principle that all industries should be nationalised sooner or later. Perhaps in defining the Objects of the Labour Party I ought to have inserted the words "sooner or later," because they are not suggesting that it ought to be done all at once.
  Now we hold that the time has come to call a halt. We have passed during this Parliament several large measures of nationalisation, in particular of the mines and transport, and we see in various directions grave difficulties arising as a consequence. In our view, the country ought to wait before it proceeds further, until it has found a way to solve those difficulties and until it is assured that the principle that has been followed in the nationalisation of these industries

  257
  is a practical, sound and workable one. We would make an exception in the case of the water resources of the nation, because those are in the nature of a natural monopoly. But, apart from that, we should be very chary of supporting new measures for the nationalisation of industries until the country sees more clearly where it stands and how the great difficulties that have ensued may be overcome.
  But it is not so with the Labour Party. I never attach importance to the "thin end of the wedge" argument, which has been used and abused to oppose every useful reform that has ever appeared. The Labour Party, however, have made it quite clear that this is not merely the thin end of the wedge, because a very large part of the wedge has been driven in. They are waiting for opportunities to press it in very much further, and are now engaged in making a selection of more industries to be included in their programme for the next Election. We cannot yet discuss that, because the selection has not yet been made, hut we cannot forget that in the Labour Party programme for the Election before last, in 1935, they included the nationaliation of the joint stock banks. We cannot ignore the fact, also, that an active Socialist Government in Australia have, in fact. passed a law to nationalise their banks, in the face of great opposition. As to that, it would be improper in this House to make any comments.
  The Minister of Fuel and Power, Mr. Gaitskell, at a meeting, I think at Folkestone, a year or so ago, was asked whether the Labour Government were going to nationalise the motor car industry, and he replied: "Not at the moment." In The Times of yesterday I read—and this is not an action of the Government, but an action by one of the principal trade unions in the country—that:
  "The Amalgamated Union of Building Trade Workers at its Conference at Bridlington passed a resolution calling for the full nationalisation of the building industry and for the immediate setting up of a State building corporation."
  It remains to be seen whether the Government will endorse that, but when a powerful trade union like that considers that an industry so organised as the building industry is a suitable one for nationalisation, we can see how grave the situation is and may become.
  258
  Now all this must give a sense of insecurity to British industry as a whole. They do not feel that they know what will happen in the future. Those who are responsible for deciding upon long-term investments and developments—they always have to face risks, and in the present state of the world the risks that have to be faced by those responsible for large industries are very great—must ask themselves: "Why should this unnecessary risk be added to all the others?" Able young men of character and capacity who are thinking of devotirg their lives to the world of industry may well hesitate if they think that in five, ten or twenty years the w hole of their work may be cut away at the roots. My noble friend Lord Lindsay said: "Oh, well, this Bill is making the best of both worlds. It continues what is good in private enterprise, and combines with it what is good in State control."
  LORD LINDSAY OF EIRKER: May I be allowed to say that I have had a good deal to do with young men in the past, and I have never come across that before.
  VISCOUNT SAMUEL: No, because it is not so prominent as it will become when one industry after another is nationalised, and one trade union after another passes resolutions to say that they ought to be nationalised.
  LORD LINDSAY OF BIRKER: That is prophecy and not a statement of the facts.
  VISCOUNT SAMUEL: I do not say it exists at the moment, but it is something looming in the future if the principle is accepted. The noble Lord said that the Government were combining in this Bill the best things in both systems. But I am afraid that he is unduly optimistic if he thinks that it will be possible in the steel industry, when this Bill comes into operation—if it does—to secure that genuine private enterprise which has existed hitherto. It does, not matter what name is put over the shop front; what matters is who has control of the finances. When all the stock is made a common stock and issued by the Government, then you will no longer have the possibility of the same degree of adventure and enterprise that you had when private enterprise largely prevailed.
  The noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, said: "But surely this was in the nature of a

  259
  monopoly." We have dealt with that in the previous stages, and for my part I do not want to repeat myself. I would urge, however, that if there are fields of monopoly in this industry they ought to be brought out clearly and on sound authority by the Government's own procedure, which they embodied in the Monopolies Act of last year. They passed that Act for that very purpose and now, while applying the Act to a number of other industries, they leave out the steel industry. The noble Lord said it is well known that it is a monopoly. It is not well known at all. The facts are very obscure, and need bringing out. The noble Lord also said that the Government could not divest themselves of their responsibility by putting the final decision in a great matter of this kind, vital to the interests of the nation, in the hands of any Commission. That is not proposed, but it is proposed that there should be an inquiry into the facts of the industry and the possible alternatives, whether by a Bill such as this or by other alternatives which might be found and which might be acceptable to the industry.
  My final point is this. Perhaps the greatest danger of all of pursuing this policy of nationalisation step by step to the end is that the State becomes more and more the sole employer of labour. There is always disagreement between labour and capital in all countries. There is a continuing effort on the part of labour to better their position, and it is very healthy and right that it should be so. But when the Government become the sole capitalist, then—and this is the danger—opposition to the employer becomes treason to the State. We see the consequences in Russia, where not only are the political institutions in the hands of an individual or a group, but the whole economic system is in the hands of the same group. We see how the rights of the trade unions are of no account whatsoever, as evidenced by the recent clash in Berlin between the Russian administration and the German railway unions. That is the great danger which faces us. It is therefore from that point of view that this situation becomes more dangerous in the long run to labour than the system of private enterprise in its modern, remoulded form, with adequate controls by the State to protect the just interests of the workers. That is not the
  260
  purpose of this Bill. This Bill is nationalisation naked but, I think, occasionally ashamed, and we on these Benches are against it.
  6.36 p.m.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, who has just sat down began with a religious parable of the story of Jonah. I do not want to pursue him very far on that ground but in fairness to National Liberals I would like to remind him that Jonah has been handed down to us as essentially a prophet, a far-sighted man looking ahead. Jonah came out very much better from the story than some others who could be mentioned. Even now I do not lose all hope that the noble Viscount may come round to Jonah's point of view. However, that is not the purpose why I have made so bold as to address your Lordships.
  I rise not to say anything new (the ground covered by the debate has been so wide that I doubt whether there is anything which has not been said) but to summarise briefly the main arguments which have been adduced during the afternoon's discussion. I think it will be generally agreed that it has been a remarkable debate, and I hope that it will be widely read and digested, not only inside this House but outside. Indeed, I imagine that, although it may not have convinced them, it has impressed even those noble Lords who are sitting on the other side of the House. In the earlier discussions on this Bill, on the Second Reading and during the Committee stage, we were concerned mainly, as was natural, with the actual provisions of the measure. But I think we have all been conscious throughout that there have been far wider issues involved than the mere details of any individual measure, however important those may be. We on this side of the House have been mainly concerned to see that the iron and steel industry is made as efficient, as productive and as harmonious as possible. We believe that that is important, not only at any time, but especially at the present moment when, as the noble Lord, Lord Brand, has warned us, there is rapidly approaching as severe an economic crisis as this country has ever had to meet.
  The Government, on the other hand, so it seems—and I have listened very care-

  261
  fully to all that has been said—are not really concerned with the economic aspects at all. It is perfectly true that the noble Viscount, Lord Hall—I do not want to misrepresent him—said in passing, in the speech with which he opened the debate: "The efficiency of an efficient iron and steel industry is absolutely essential." But neither he nor any of the other spokesmen of the Government have given the slightest indication throughout all these discussions as to how nationalisation is going to further that end. Moreover, if the noble Viscount, Lord Hall, said that to-day, he said something else on the Second Reading of the Bill. I have already quoted the passage once to your Lordships, and perhaps you will allow me to quote it once more. The noble Viscount said:
  "I am not going to base the case which I shall submit to you on the question of the efficiency or otherwise of the industry."
  We must therefore assume that increased efficiency is not the main reason behind the introduction of this Bill, and we must assume equally that to the noble Viscount himself, and to his colleagues, the issue—as I think the noble Lord, Lord Lindsay quite frankly said—is mainly political. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, that there is nothing disreputable about an issue being political; but it is very important that we should realise where we stand, and we know that it is political—that has gradually been coming out throughout the Second Reading, the Committee and the Report stages. It is, therefore, over that aspect in particular that our main discussions have been ranging this afternoon.
  LORD PAKENHAM: Whether one chooses to call a particular reason political or economic is a matter of terminology. But the Bill, in fact, seeks ultimately to raise the standard of life of the British people—whether the noble Lord chooses to describe that as political or economic.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I am coming to these points as I go along. This political aspect is, of course, vital because it raises the whole question of what we mean by democracy. No doubt we all have our own ideas of what democracy means. Lord Lindsay said that when I spoke of democracy it filled him with suspicion. I do not quite know why;
  262
  I asked hint why, and he gave no answer. Actually, I consider myself, like many other noble Lords on this side, a very Rood democrat. Indeed, I have been three times elected by the democratic electorate of a constituency, which I believe is more than the noble Lord himself can say. In any case, what I mean by democracy cal be quite simply described: it is exactly the same as what Abraham Lincoln meant:
  "Government of the people, by the people, for the people."
  It means that the people—all sections of the community—should be allowed to manage their own affairs, economic and otherwise, in their own way, so far as is consistent with the welfare of the community as a whole. I gather that that definition receives general approval. But to my mind it is perfectly clear that the Government, by my definition of "democracy," are not democratic at all.
  The noble Viscount, Lord Hall, in an earlier speech described economic democracy and nationalisation as the same. To the noble Viscount, therefore, democracy means Socialism in its most complete form. It means, as the noble Lord, Lord Rennell and the noble Lord, Lord Brand have pointed out, the end of all private effort and of private initiative on any considerable scale. It means the centralisation in the State of all our main activities. Now that is the policy of the Government, as. I understand it from what they have sail and are saying on every platform in the country; if they have their way that is the process that will continue until all these main activities have beer absorbed into the State machine. I do not say that every little shop will be shut down, and every tiny business absorbed, but the main activities of our great industries are to be so absorbed. To such an idea as that we on these Benches, like the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, and those who support him, are unalterably opposed—not, let me say to the Lord Lindsay, from any doctrinaire prejudice but for severely practical reasons.
  We believe that the result of the wholesale socialisation of industry would be, not the management of industry by the infinitely varied ingenuity of free men but the substitution for them of a dictatorial, standardised, unimaginative and horribly expensive bureaucracy. That is

  263
  what we believe it would mean. Indeed, that is already happening to some considerable extent in both the coal and the railway industry at the present time. I am not sure about the position on the railways, but in the coal industry losses have been made and yet the price of coal is going up; and certainly the price of travelling is steadily rising. Lord Pakenham spoke with immense satisfaction of the position of civil aviation. He said he had never seen so much keenness, or men so happy. But my impression is that civil aviation is going to cost the country a considerable number of millions this year. If the noble Lord can contradict that I shall be glad to listen to him.
  LORD PAKENHAM: As the noble Marquess has challenged me, the answer is that losses are steadily dropping. If he wishes to discuss civil aviation and cares to stop for the next debate before the House, we shall no doubt be able to go into all these matters.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The fact remains that there is a considerable loss on the operations. Now, if the economic effects of this revolution (for I can only call it a revolution, if a gradual revolution) are likely to be deplorable I should have thought that the social effects are likely to to be more formidable. To listen to the noble Viscount, Lord Hall, one would gain the impression that under this new dispensation the coal miners, the railwaymen, the gas workers and the rest were controlling their destiny as never before. But, in fact, as all the workers in those nationalised industries are increasingly finding out, all they have done is to exchange one employer for another —and one more rigid, remote, and unapproachable than the other was. The gap between employer and employee today in these great monopolies is far wider than in the past.
  There are, moreover, many other disturbing results from the present developments, to which earlier speakers have drawn attention—I do not want to go into them at length, because time does not permit. There is the extravagance of administration, which has been referred to by more than one speaker; there is the dislocation of industry at a moment of great economic peril, mentioned by Lord Brand; there is
  264
  the inefficiency of nationalised industry, mentioned by Lord Woolton. I think that Lord Pakenham challenged Lord Woolton on a quotation of a speech by the Lord President of the Council. I now have the quotation. This is what the Lord President said—it was in a speech made in Leeds in 1945:
  "Mind you, nationalisation is no magic cure; it is not an end in itself. It provides the conditions, and the opportunity."
  No doubt the noble Lord will fully agree with that
  "The test of success will be whether these industries will be better run, whether they show a steady increase in technical efficiency and public spirit from the top to the bottom."
  The noble Lord accepts that, I trust. But there is a corollary. If these industries do not show that efficiency, what happens? Are the Government then ready to denationalise them? If the Lord President's argument is an accurate and correct interpretation of Socialist doctrine these industries, if they do not show themselves more efficient under nationalisation, ought to be de-nationalised. No doubt the noble Viscount the Leader of the House would like to deal with that point.
  VISCOUNT ADDISON: I am not objecting, but I will deal with it later.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: It was because Lord Pakenham raised the question that I was putting the point to him.
  Next, there is the question of the inhumanity of these vast monopolies and the frustration and distrust of the workers to-day, which was mentioned by my noble relative Lord Cecil, and there is the further danger of definite class friction which was mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Halifax. All these are formidable features of our present national situation, but I do not propose, if the House will forgive me, to go further into them because the hour is now late and they have already been brought to the notice of the House. There is, however, one particular point which has already been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Woolton, which I should like to re-emphasise. I am almost relieved that the noble Viscount, Lord Hall, is not here because I am afraid that to him it is rather like a red rag to a bull. I want to re-emphasise it because it is a result of nationalisation which was cer-

  265
  tainly not in the minds of the electorate in 1945. It has emerged, as the result of our practical experiences, only in the last four years. It is this. The intervention of the State as an active participator in industry is already leading, in my belief and in the belief of many others, to the destruction of the whole balance of the structure of industrial relations in this country.
  Before the advent of State ownership, such a balance had been successfully achieved. I do not say that it was an ideal balance, but on the whole it worked. There were three elements—this is all very elementary for your Lordships, but I would remind you of them—in this industrial structure. There were the employers, there were the employees—two bodies who negotiated with each other under an elaborate system of collective bargaining which had grown up over a great many years—and then there was finally the State (that is, the community) who stepped in as an arbiter when the system of collective bargaining was not leading to a satisfactory solution. Broadly speaking, that is the position which existed. The leaders of the trade unions, who represented the men, enjoyed the confidence of those for whom they spoke, for they owed an undivided loyalty to those whom they represented. Can anyone say that is the case now? To-day, the whole position of the trade unions, which are, after all, an essential balance in our industrial life and have the support of all Parties alike, is being tainted and warped by politics.
  When a Labour Government are in power, as they are to-day, the leaders have a divided loyalty—on the one hand, to their own political Party, which in the nationalised industries has become the employer; and, on the other, to the men who have elected them to champion their interests. This dual allegiance—we can see it happening all the time—sways them first one way and then the other. The inevitable result is that they lose the confidence of their followers, and chaos results, in the shape of unofficial strikes, which are becoming an increasingly prevalent feature of our affairs. When an anti-Socialist Government come into power, no doubt the position will be entirely different. The political beliefs of the trade union leaders will lead them always, in the nationalised industries, to oppose the employer-State, which in their minds will be identified with their politi-
  266
  cal opponents. But even then their impulse will not be the right one, for their views will be dictated by political and not industrial considerations. That, as I see it, is the cancer which is beginning to infect our whole industrial life as a result of the policy of nationalisation. At present, fortunately, it appears to be, comparatively speaking, confined to those industries which have already been taken into public ownership; but with the socialisation of our whole industrial life it will spread and spread and, with its spread, our national unity and our national efficiency will be mortally impaired.
  I have spoken only briefly of them, but those dangers, which have been mentioned either by myself or, much more fully and more capably, by earlier speakers, are the perils which are at the present time grimly opening before us. They are the dangers to which the Government, with what, if I may say so, I can call only reckless irresponsibility, are exposing our country at a moment of acute economic peril. A great deal of harm has already been done, and this Bill, to which your Lordships are asked to give a Third Reading to-day, is likely, in our view, to spread that evil infinitely further. I hope that I shall not be told that I know nothing whatever about industrial relations. That has been said to me before from the opposite side of the House. But, my Lords, it needs no technical knowledge to detect these dangers. They are portents which are patent to every thinking man and woman in the country. In most impressive terms, as I think will be agreed, the House has been warned this afternoon of these dangers by some of the most respected figures in our public life, men who will certainly not be said to be actuated by any unworthy or partisan motive. They have all given the Government a solemn warning, and I believe their anxieties are by no means confined to this side of the House. I wish even now that we could hope that the Government would be guided by what they have said.
  Ultimately, of course, it is only the electorate that can decide the road that this country is to tread. The noble Viscount the Leader of the House suggested, in the last speech which he de-livered to your Lordships on this subject during the Committee stage, that

  267
  this House, in the action that they have taken with regard to this Bill, had exceeded their proper functions. Honestly, without wishing to say anything provocative, I do not think that that criticism was fair. We have not opposed the Second Reading of this Bill; we have not opposed the Third Reading of this Bill. We have done our very best to amend the Bill efficiently and practically in Committee. I would assure the noble Viscount if he is not already aware of it, that we in this House, on whatever side we sit, have no desire to supersede the electorate. What we can do and what we must do, if we are to justify our existence, is to express our very real preoccupations for the benefit of the electorate, and do what lies in our power to give them the chance to come to their own decision. The Leader of the House, in the speech to which I have already referred, said that the Government:
  "will not accept that this House shall be able to demand a second mandate of the people."
  As was stated by my noble friend, Lord Swinton, on the Second Reading, we do not accept that there has been a clear mandate to the people, even in 1945, for this particular Bill. The Bill which we are discussing now is a very different measure from that which was envisaged at that time. But, in any case, if such a mandate existed, it was a mandate to try an experiment. It was not a blank cheque.
  Now, the position is entirely different. The experiment of nationalisation has been tried in one great industry after another. The results have certainly not come up to expectation and, in the view of many, have been disastrous. In such circumstances, surely it is not unconstitutional for the Second Chamber to give a chance to the people to have another look at this policy, in the light of experience, before yet another great industry, the most complicated and most vital of all, is put into the same straitjacket. Not only do I believe that this House were right to take the course they adopted; I believe that if we had not taken it the country would, rightly, not have forgiven us. We might have expected the Government even to cooperate with us in this most democratic
  268
  object. Up to now, we have been disappointed in that expectation. We can only hope that, when the Bill returns to another place, wiser counsels will prevail.
  6.59 p.m.
  VISCOUNT ADDISON: My Lords, in the first instance, I would most heartily associate myself with what the noble Marquess said at the beginning of his speech in paying tribute to the general character of our discussion. I think a great deal of it has been rather wide of the mark, so far as this Bill is concerned, but we have had some interesting and thoughtful discourses on the merits or demerits—some real and some completely Imaginary — of Socialistic proposals. However, before I try to deal with some of the points that have been made, may I say a word about the speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel—the kind of speech to which we are becoming rather accustomed? Evidently, he has set himself out to tell the Labour Party what is in its mind. It is exceedingly interesting but, so far as I know, having been intimately associated with the Labour Party now for a good many years, his description of its mind and what its objectives and methods are likely to be has no relation whatever to reality. That is all I can say about it.
  But I could not understand him—and that is why I ventured to interrupt the noble Viscount—when he said that he based his case in opposing this Bill on some question of principle. Then he told us that as a result of his argument the time had come to call a halt. I want to say that that is not a question of principle at all; that is merely a question of expediency or of time, and considerations of that sort. There is no question of principle in it. When the noble Viscount was describing to us the attitude of the Liberal Party on this matter his remarks would have applied just as well to the Gas Bill when it was before us, and even more so to the Bank of England Bill when that was before us. So far as I remember, the noble Viscount did not raise any objection to those Bills, because they were introduced in the early stages —if you like, when the mandate was a little more fresh.
  LORD HAWKE: And the experiment was beginning.
  VISCOUNT ADDISON: But there was no difference in the principle of the Bill —not a bit. Now I come, very shortly, to the question of this Bill. May I just refer to what the noble Marquess said a moment ago about this claim to refer the matter to a second vote of the people, or words to that effect?
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: That was your expression, not mine.
  VISCOUNT ADDISON: Never mind; it means the same thing. When we have the view of the other place sent up to us on the Amendment which has been put into the Bill prescribing the time of coming into operation of the Bill, if they differ from your Lordships, which I suspect they will, there will, no doubt, be an opportunity of discussing this matter Therefore, I will refrain from saying any more about it at the moment. But I retain the view which I expressed with some emphasis on the occasion to which the noble Viscount has referred.
  I was interested to hear Lord Woolton's speech on the Bill. I wish that he had given the Bill a little more study because he described it as "giving a notice of dismissal"—those were his words—to those who are at present conducting the different industries which make up the Bill. There is nothing of the kind in the Bill—not a word of it. As a matter of fact, we have discussed with considerable good will various Amendments to give a certain security of tenure to those now in office. But of course the proposal that there should be a holding company and that the different concerns should be under separate boards —and for the most part I have no doubt the present boards will continue—is not a question of a notice of dismissal. It has no relation whatever to the Bill.
  I come next to a point which was made by several speakers—namely, that the Bill is political. Of course, it is political. What else could it be? It is what should be our national policy with regard to this industry. That is a political issue. It may be founded upon economic and other considerations, but of course it is political.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I do not want to interrupt the Leader of the House, but it is more than that. The political issue is that all the main industries in this country should morally be
  270
  in the hands of what they call the people. That has been said both in this House and outside.
  VISCOUNT ADDISON: I have no recollection of that having been said in this House. However, that is not the issue before us to-day. The issue before us to-day is whether it is or is not desirable in the national interest that this industry should be treated in this way. That is the issue. It is not some imaginary evil which the noble Lo-d has conjured up, with many flesh-creeping illustrations, of what may happen in the dim and distant future. That is lot the issue at all. The issue is: Is this the sensible way of dealing with this great industry? That is the issue and it is nothing else, and I refuse to be drawl into the wilderness which the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, conjured up in his speech.
  Let us look at some of the considerations which have been raised in connection with this Bill, partly in objection to it and partly otherwise. The noble Lord, Lord Rennell, and several other speakers said that this meant the suppression of the individual—"the subservience of the individual" was the expression of the noble Lord. But the noble Marquess drew our attention to the "inhumanity of these vast monopolies." Let us look at that for a moment. My noble friend Lord Macdonald was for many years of his life a miner. He must have been exceedingly careful because is seems that as a hobby he made a record of what he earned under the glorious system of freedom of private enterprise from which we are told we must not depart. Lord Macdonald was working at the coal face for twenty-two years, under the happy system which we are told we ought to continue. In the whole of those twenty-two years added together, he did not receive as much as £2,001 If you divide that up into weeks you will see that it is substantially less than £2, a week.
  LORD CHERWELL: Which is worth £5 to-day.
  VISCOUNT ADDISON: If it was worth £5 to-day he would lot be very rich, would he? But at all events, that is what he had under this system. But that is not the end of it. For various periods, not because it was national policy, not because it was in the interests of the community, but because that particular

  271
  concern so decreed it, he was without any wages at all. I ask: What about the subservience of the individual in that case? What about the subservience of the individual in this industry as it was years ago within my own personal knowledge? Some parts of it could be closed down at the will of a particular concern and people put out of their homes and left destitute. I do not know what others may think of that, but we do not think much of that system of freedom of the individual. They are subservient to an organisation or a system which does not —and I am not blaming it—by its character take account of public need. For my part, I am quite sure that it was that kind of consideration, that kind of bitter experience, which made the miners so determined that they would have nationalisation of the mines.
  A good many of your Lordships have said that nationalisation of the mines is not doing very well at present. It is not. I am not suggesting for a moment that the production of coal, the price of coal, and all the rest of it are what we should like them to be to-day. They are not. But what sensible, thinking person ever expected that this industry, which has been a disgrace to our community for two or three generations, would be put right in two or three years? I am an old man and I do not expect to live to see it, but if it is put right in twenty years then I think we shall have done exceedingly well. That is the kind of vision which we have got to have. It is very short-sighted, unthinking criticism that is based on the assertion that some of these concerns have their defects now when they have been under public ownership for only two or three years. That is not related to the point at all. I know that we have these miserable strikes, contrary to union advice. But I also have a vivid recollection of the state of the coal industry for three or four years after the last war. I do not forget that; neither do the miners. That was the system which the men resented and to which they will never agree to return. I believe that even the noble Earl, Lord Halifax, though he had not a good word to say for the system of nationalisation, did admit that he thought that if a vote were taken the workers would not vote to return to the system
  272
  of private ownership. I think the noble Earl said that. I am sure that the workers would not vote to go back to the old system, though it is true that they are not altogether happy with the present system as it is.
  So, as I say, I think it is not fair to contend that because we have troubles in the mines—and I admit that we shall have trouble in the mines—because we are not getting coal in the way that we had hoped, nationalisation has not proved successful. We have the machinery for improving the industry, the machinery for taking into consideration what is in the national interest and particularly what is in the interest of each different local concern in the industry throughout the land. It is even more important that those kind of considerations should apply to iron and steel. The noble Lord, Lord Lindsay of Birker, gave us a very interesting and thoughtful speech on this aspect, and I hope that many of your Lordships swill read the report of it. He pointed out that there are all kinds of ways which can be employed to bring about improvements: we have not by any means as yet found the completely right method by which national control should be exercised.
  Do not let us forget that behind the scenes in this industry there has been for many years a large measure of central control. Even before the war there were cartel agreements with European producers. Control is not new, but it is true that one method may be more efficient and sensible to apply, say, in the coal industry than, let us say, in the gas industry. I believe, and I say frankly, that I am sure that methods which have hitherto been adopted will be improved upon. We shall not learn how to manage this business all at once. It is an entirely different set-up, a great experiment; but I think that this is the right kind of set-up. It aims at giving national control of the main policy and the production of the industry, and at the same time it preserves the independence and the initiative of the private and individual companies. I dare say there will be mistakes: I think there will be. We should not be human beings if we did not make mistakes. I dare say that sometimes there will be temptation to make too much use of red tape. Behind the scenes I have often contributed what

  273
  I could to the diminution of red tape; it is a tempting article to provide when dealing with certain matters. There may well be mistakes, but the central idea is that there will be direction of policy and of the development of the industry, taking account all the time of national needs and at the same time trying to develop—as I hope will be the case— local initiative and enterprise.
  That is the general idea of this Bill and I have not heard a word to-day of disparagement of what is proposed, except general condemnation of Socialism such as we have had from the noble Lord, Lord Brand. He always condemns Socialism; we are used to it. But apart from general condemnation of the Socialistic method I have heard nothing disparaging of the method proposed in this Bill.
  LORD BRAND: I do not wish unnecessarily to interrupt, but may I ask the noble Viscount one question? It is with regard to each of the existing boards. Will they finance themselves independently or do they look to the Government or to the Corporation for their money?
  VISCOUNT ADDISON: The shares of the concern, as the noble Lord knows, will belong to the State.
  LORD BRAND: I mean future finance, when they want money.
  VISCOUNT ADDISON: I have no doubt that sensible arrangements will be made with the Steel Corporation whereby the ordinary finances of the concerns will be dealt with—surely there is nothing to be hilarious about in that. If they did not make these sensible and practical arrangements they would be very foolish people. But hypothetical questions of this kind are neither here nor there. These boards will pursue their business, so far as can be, on separate independent and progressive bases. Any sensible man who had been a member of this Corporation for a week would, I am sure, have addressed himself to dealing with the very question which the noble Lord, Lord Brand, asks. But it is beside the main issue altogether. These really are trivial details. Noble Lords ought to realise that we should not have these pedantic details introduced into a debate on a great issue such as that which we are now discussing on the right way of
  274
  guiding in the national interest the policy and development of this great industry.
  This is a concrete scheme which is put up in opposition to a control primarily and in the end for personal interest. That is the issue, and that is the issue upon which we stand. I have no doubt myself that in practice, given a fair chance, this scheme in a few years' Lime will be such a success that a number of noble Lords who are now young enough to have a good prospect of seeing that success will ask themselves why they were ever so foolish as to oppose it.
  On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.
  [The Sitting was adjourned at twenty minutes past seven o'clock and resumed at half past eight.]

  AIRWAYS CORPORATIONS BILL
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  LORD PAKENHAM: My Lords, I rise to move the Second Reading of the Airways Corporations Bill. In doing so, I should like to express my gratitude to the Opposition for helping us in the way they are doing. I am rot as yet aware what their reaction will be to the Bill, but it seems to me they have shown a wise and generous attitude in enabling us to proceed with it as rapidly as possible, and allowing the Corporations to know where they stand. This is a short Bill and I will therefore ask permission of the House to deal with it fairly briefly, although the issue is important. The purpose of the Bill is simple. It is to amalgamate two out of the three British Airways Corporations—the British Overseas Airways Corporation and the. British South American Airways Corporation. The single issue before the House to-day is whether or not this amalgamation shall take place. As I think is generally known, the amalgamation is approved and supported by the Board of B.O.A.C. and the Board of B.S.A.A., and by the National Joint Council of the civil aviation industry, on which the trade unions, of course, are represented on an equal footing with the managements. It would be fair to suggest that if the companies concerned were operating under private enterprise the merger would go

  275
  through with the agreement of all concerned. Let me remove any possible doubt as to whether I am influenced here by the opinion of others—I am convinced that it is the right and essential step in the circumstances, and I am hopeful that this House after due consideration will take the same view this evening.
  Let me make another point absolutely clear. The Bill does not in any way, actually or potentially, affect the third of the British Airways Corporations—British European Airways. That Corporation carries on a different kind of business from the two which it is proposed to amalgamate. It flies different types of aircraft over shorter stages. It is responsible also for the internal services of this country where special circumstances arise. So far as it is possible to see into the future, there is likely to be no advantage in merging British European Airways with the other Corporations, and I would underline the fact to-day that the Government has no such intention. British European Airways can go on their way with the good will of all of us and, I may add (though I have been in civil aviation just long enough to touch wood and cross my fingers whenever optimism overtakes me) British European Airways is putting in some particularly impressive work at the present time.
  I feel sure that in discussing the proposed amalgamation of the other two Corporations, we can keep ourselves clear of Party politics. So far as I can see, no moral or political issue is involved. As I said, it is simply a question that might arise between two private companies as to which is the most efficient way of conducting the business. In so far as a Minister in my position might be supposed to start with a political bias, it would probably be in favour of maintaining a status quo and avoiding the necessity of asking for an important amendment of the Civil Aviation Act, 1946. But it was made plain at the time the Civil Aviation Act was passed that there was nothing sacred about the number of three Corporations, nothing immutable about that arrangement, and the House I am sure shares the view of the Government that if, in the light of circumstances, it seems that the arrangement should be modified, it is our duty to come down to Parliament and ask for permission to modify it.
  276
  Towards the end of last year, when I had been Minister for a few months, I went thoroughly into the problem of the amalgamation of two or more Corporations. I reached the definite conclusion, from which I have never receded and in relation to which I have never wavered, that British European Airways should be left as they were, but I was much more doubtful at that time about B.O.A.C. and B.S.A.A. I ought to say at once, and I am particularly glad to say it in the presence of my noble friend, Lord Lindsay, who deals out praise and blame impartially to his own side and others, that I am no blind fanatical amalgamationist. You can very often find reasons, as you can in this case, for an amalgamation between companies undertaking comparable work; you can usually point, as you can here, to some overlapping of functions at headquarters and elsewhere, and to economies that could be effected if this overlapping were eliminated. You can often point to the advantages of a more coherent and systematic structure.
  On the other hand, my Socialism owes quite enough to Mr. G. K. Chesterton, Mr. Hilaire Belloc and my old tutor who sits behind me, the Master of Balliol, to be aware of the dangers of bigness. I am quite aware that the optimum unit may not be the most efficient or most socially desirable unit in various ways; and I am aware that you do not inevitably improve a coupie of "good shows" by throwing them into one. In short, it is in my view a practical matter that has to be considered on its merits in each particular case as it comes along. I would make it plain that at the beginning of the present year, after studying this question for quite a little while, I had an open mind about the ultimate future. But I was quite clear that the balance of argument in favour of amalgamation, if it existed at all—as many thought—was far more than offset at that time by the disturbance that would be caused at a moment when a great deal of reorganisation was going on, and by the fact, which weighed heavily with me at that moment, that the board of B.S.A.A. were strongly opposed to a merger. I therefore decided definitely against a merger at that time.
  That situation was rapidly changed by the loss of "Star Ariel" in January of this year. The House will remember

  277
  that after a most searching inquiry, undertaken by the greatest of all experts on aviation, the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, which left the cause of the disaster unexplained, it was necessary to withdraw from passenger service the nineteen Tudor IV aircraft, four in service and the rest nearing completion, on which B.S.A.A. were relying for all their future plans until the big flying boats and the De Havilland jet planes—the Comets —should come along in 1953 or thereabouts. We were confronted then—I want to put the House into the situation with which I was confronted—with a problem of replacing by the most economical means the capacity lost by the withdrawal of the Tudors. It was a very troublesome problem, as noble Lords are aware, although one honourable member in another place, usually particularly thoughtful and well-informed, seemed to think— whether he was speaking seriously or not I do not know—that all I had to do was to show a little initiative and "winkle" (that was not his expression; it is mine but it conveys his meaning) a few extra British aircraft out of my friend the Minister of Supply. There were and are, in fact, no suitable British aircraft which could be made available in time to restore the services and meet the planned expansion.
  Reviewing, therefore, the new situation —first, the original arguments for and against amalgamation; secondly, the fact that it was no use trying to avoid a disturbance, because the disturbance had already occurred; and thirdly, the aircraft problem as it now presented itself—I had little doubt that the case for amalgamation was now overwhelming. And this is a very significant fact: I found that the board of B.S.A.A.—who were, of course, represented by the chairman in his dealings with me—who had previously been opposed, were now clearly in favour, and that B.O.A.C. agreed with this view. Having secured the approval of my colleagues in the Government, I announced in this House on March 15 our intention to introduce legislation to bring the amalgamation into effect.
  Why am I so certain that this amalgamation is the right thing? I will try to explain briefly and clearly, distinguishing between many various pros and cons, one fundamental argument which seems to me conclusive. The beginning of
  278
  wisdom in the light of the present aircraft situation—because I am not going to dogmatise about the past—is the proposition that the North and South Atlantic must be run by a single company, however much devolution or decentralisation you provide within that framework—and I have no doubt that a good deal is required. Without going too much into detail of past history, experience of the last three years has shown that North and Central America, the West Indies and the Northern Republics of South America can, from the operational point of view, best be treated as one area. They can best be served from the United Kingdom by one or two main arteries, along which all the traffic would pass to a focal point on the other side from which connecting services would radiate. Already, as the House knows, the service to Central America and West Indies is operated via North America, and the experience of the last three years convinces us that both operationally and commercially the most economical method of transporting the traffic on the common Atlantic stage is by the use of a single fleet under the control of one operating organisation.
  This method possesses two clear advantages. I know how difficult it is to sum up the arguments for or against any particular organisation or levelopment, but if I may put it briefly I will do it in this way. First, it provides flexibility in the disposition of aircraft capacity to meet varying incidence in seasonal traffic demands in this area. North American seasonal traffic demand; do not arise at the same time as Caribbean area seasonal demands, and the necessary switches of capacity can readily be made from the resources of a single 11,2,t under a central control. Secondly, and perhaps more fundamental, even apart from the seasonal factor, the use of a single fleet as an alternative to separate fleets of two Corporations enables the capacity available to be put to its maximum use over the common stretch across the North Atlantic. In the result, less overall aircraft capacity, operating, of course, to higher load factors, is necessary. In that way you secure the greatest possible economy in numbers of aircraft and the highest possible earnings per aircraft. Admittedly, as some noble Lords will wish to point out, the route to Brazil, Argentine,

  279
  Uruguay and Chile is a separate operational task—I am not disputing that—but it represents roughly only a half of B.S.A.A.'s present activities. No one would seriously suggest that that sector forms the basis in itself for a separate Corporation. Indeed, many advocates of the optimum unit theory would consider that B.S.A.A. was already too small. Once it is accepted, as I think it must be, that you cannot, for reasons of aircraft utilisation, separate the North and Central lines, you are committed inevitably, I would submit, to a single management for the whole Atlantic area.
  I pause there, because we are now passing the crucial stage of the argument. What follows from that in regard to the number of Corporations? Two possible decisions could be discussed, but only one surely can be seriously entertained. Theoretically, I admit that I could have asked Parliament to remodel the Corporations in a different way from that now proposed. Theoretically, I could have thought of a different plan. B.O.A.C. has about 19,000 employees, B.S.A.A. about 2,000, and under our existing proposals we are joining the 2,000 with the 19,000 on terms that are approved by the Boards of both. We could instead, I agree—though I do not think the House will wish to pursue it very far—have split the large Corporation, B.O.A.C., from top to bottom. We could have taken its Atlantic or Western elements, a number a long way in excess of the total engaged in B.S.A.A., and hooked together this element and B.S.A.A. to retain the original mystic number of three Corporations. That was the only other conceivable course.
  By so doing we should, I submit, have created far more disturbance than the proposed arrangement and would just as effectively have ended the separate identity of B.S.A.A. Moreover, we should have acted in the teeth of the considered judgment of the Boards of both companies concerned. In the circumstances, would that not have been an inconceivable course? I am sure it would. I hope and believe that nobody will recommend it in this House, 'because I am sure it would have been a very bad course. With that one exception, which in the circumstances I decline to take very seriously, I am sure that the one thing
  280
  we could do is the one that we have done. We are following out the logic of a single control for the Atlantic area by unifying the North and South Atlantic managements while maintaining the present unity of the North Atlantic and Empire routes; and that means, of course, an amalgamation on general lines such as we propose. In short, in taking this decision we have gone hack to first principles.
  Of course, a great many detailed calculations arising out of the particularities of the aircraft situation had to be worked out. As your Lordships are aware, we have gone some way to fill the gap left by the disappearance from the scene of the nineteen Tudors by acquiring four Stratocruisers which will probably carry as many passengers across the Atlantic as eleven Tudors. It may be said, though not I think by anyone well-informed in these matters, as noble Lords are: Why not give them to B.S.A.A., and why not get B.O.A.C. to hand over to B.S.A.A. some other aircraft? Well, my Lords, if the House wishes, I can attempt in my reply to deal with these points in detail hut, frankly, while those projects would have been most impracticable, the issue really goes deeper. The vital point lies where I sought to place it earlier. In principle, it has become clear that it is better to organise the Atlantic from a single headquarters. I agree that it was differently organised before, for a number of historical reasons which perhaps need not detain us now. It would almost certainly have been wrong, I agree, to disturb the existing organisation, but fate stepped in and effected the disturbance herself.
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: Would the noble Lord elaborate that? If it is fundamentally right to have this new organisation, what has fate to do with it? It is either right or wrong.
  LORD PAKENHAM: If fate had not stepped in, in the disappearance of the Tudors, we should have had a different aircraft situation. We should have had nineteen Tudors which we do not now possess. We should have found that the Corporation of B.S.A.A. were strongly opposed to the change. I do not believe that in these circumstances the noble Viscount, whatever his view

  281
  of abstract argument, would have considered it prudent to intervene; and that was the view I took, as I explained at the beginning of my speech.
  In the new circumstances it would have been far more certainly wrong, and indeed I personally should have been acutely conscious of betraying not only British civil aviation but the general body of taxpayers if I had declined to make use of this sad disaster—for that is what it was—to the Tudors by making a fresh start along the lines mentioned that commended themselves o to the shrewd business managements concerned. The managements in question included, of course, the particularly capable chairman of B.S.A.A., Mr. Booth, who had originally played so enterprising and valuable a part on behalf of private shipping interests in launching that separate concern. I know that I can quote Mr. Booth, with his consent. He was emphatic that in the new circumstances the amalgamation was necessary and proper.
  The main argument for the merger is the one I have just stated. I can summarise it by saying that that is the only way of using our aircraft fleets to the best advantage on the routes now served by B.O.A.C. and B.S.A.A. Putting that in terms of output per man employed, the benefits will accrue rather from a larger productive result achieved by the employment of the same kind and number of men than by drastically cutting down staff and getting the same total result as before with a smaller number employed. It is a question of getting the same number of people to produce a much better result. It would be most improper, in my opinion, and the reverse of courageous, to say the least, if I sought to avoid redundancies for fear of public criticism if, in fact, such redundancies were necessary in the interests of efficiency. It seems unlikely, however, that any appreciable number of men will lose their jobs as a result of the merger in addition to those vacancies arising from normal wastage which will not be filled. I am referring to vacancies which will occur mainly among the headquarters and administrative staff.
  One should bear in mind that B.S.A.A. unlike B.O.A.C., were in the process of building up to meet the needs of the Tudors. As I stated in this House on March 1:5—and by leave of the House I wish to repeat it now—any staff redund-
  282
  ancies resulting from the merger will be shared fairly between the two Corporations and in accordance with National Joint Council procedure. On the other hand—I again stress this fact—redundancies arising from the internal reorganisation of B.O.A.C.—I stress this again as I stressed it in Marc:I—which brought down their numbers from 24,464 in March, 1947, to 20,890 a year ago and 18,871 to-day will be restricted in fact to B.O.A.C. personnel. I cannot pledge that no single man in B.S.A.A. will lose his job because of redundancy arising from the merger, but I do net think from this point of view the staff of B.S.A.A. have any cause for anxiety.
  This then is the purpose of the Bill to provide for the amalgamation of B.O.A.C. and B.S.A.A. Unfortunately, it is impossible to make a clean merger of these two Corporations by a single legislative action. B.S.A.A. have various operating rights, contracts and permits in South America which cannot be transferred to 13.O.A.C. merely by legislation in this country. The contracts will have to be negotiated individually between the parties concerned, and their transfer will take some time. Meanwhile, it is necessary to keep B.S.A.A. legally alive. Clause 1 of the Bill, therefore, provides for a two stage merger. The first stage is that under subsection (I) all B.S.A.A.'s property in the United Kingdom and aircraft, and all their rights and liabilities enforceable in the United Kingdom, are to vest in B.O.A.C. immediately on the passing of the Act. Under the remaining subsections, B.S.A.A are empowered to transfer any other property or rights to B.O.A.C., and B.O.A.C. are empowered to undertake any other liabilities or obligations of B.S.A.A., in both cases without consideration and without payment of stamp duty. The second stage is reached when the Minister is satisfied that the necessary arrangements have been made. He may then direct by statutory instrument that B.S.A.A. shall be dissolved on an appointed day.
  The other clauses, with one exception, are mainly technical and I do not think the House would wish me to discuss them at this stage. But I would say one word about Clause 5, which concerns the Board of the Corporation Hid, in particular, makes possible the appointment of a

  283
  second deputy chairman to B.O.A.C. It is the intention, as I announced on March 15, that the present chairman of B.S.A.A., Mr. Booth, should become a joint deputy chairman of the new Corporation with Mr. Whitney Straight. I believe I carry the whole of the House with me in saying that we have here two first-rate lieutenants with the new chairman, Sir Miles Thomas —a most inspiring leader to succeed that great public servant, Sir Harold Hartley.
  My Lords, I have presented this simple but important measure in broad outline, and I am ready to attempt to-day, or later, to reply to any questions that may be raised. At this stage the House has a very simple issue before it— namely, to allow or not allow these Corporations to amalgamate in the way that all directly responsible consider to be in the best interests of British civil aviation. I have great confidence in the future of the Corporations in their new form, but if we are shortly to take leave of B.S.A.A. let us not do so without paying tribute to the men at all levels who got it going and who under its auspices have accomplished so much. I would not be asking the House to approve this measure unless I felt sure that in the future their opportunities would be as wide, perhaps wider, and their services as great, perhaps greater, in the years ahead of them. To them, to their new colleagues and to all those actively engaged in British civil aviation, II believe that this House is ready to send out a message of hope and encouragement, and in that spirit I beg to move that this Bill be read a second time. Once again, I would like to thank noble Lords for coming together in a way that has facilitated this movement forward.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Pakenham.)
  8.58 p.m.
  LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, the noble Lord, to whom we are indebted for his explanation of this Bill, was good enough to express in terms of appreciation the action of the Opposition in facilitating the progress of the Bill. I am sure I speak on behalf of all noble Lords on this side of the House when I say that we are grateful for his appreciation. We are always willing to help. When something proposed by the Government is good, we welcome it with open
  284
  arms; but if wrong is to be done, then let us know the worst and face it. Let me say at the outset, that we on this side of the House do not like this Bill. The noble Lord said that we have to allow or not allow this amalgamation. So far as this House is concerned, I think that direct issue does not quite arise. In another place this amalgamation was sanctioned by a majority of the Members. We must in this case acquiesce with that majority, but in acquiescing with the majority decision we do not in any way give up our rights of objecting to and criticising the measure.
  The noble Lord summed up the advantages and disadvantages of this Bill—or he said he did. If I may say so, it was rather a one-way traffic. His praise of the Bill would have conveyed greater conviction to me had he been a little more balanced. It may be that there is some criticism to be made and that not everything that is to be said should be in terms of praise. By the time I had listened to the noble Lord's speech, taken in what he was saying and absorbed all those forcible arguments which he put forward, I wondered why the Government had ever proposed three Corporations originally. The noble Lord's speech was very special pleading. From the other side I would like to put forward, I hope in a reasonable manner, four criticisms of this Bill. Then let noble Lords, even though we do not vote against it, at any rate make up a balance in their minds concerning the advantages of this Bill on what I and perhaps other noble Lords may put forward.
  My first criticism is that this is a premature, permanent alteration to correct a passing phase. The noble Lord has said that what finally brought about the introduction of the Bill was the very tragic loss of the "Star Ariel," the subsequent withdrawal of the Tudor aircraft and the consequent shortage of aircraft resulting upon that withdrawal. But the answer is, I think, that aircraft can be replaced; and the right action, I believe, should have been not to make this a permanent alteration in the structure of our civil aviation, but to concentrate upon replacing the deficient aircraft in some way or another. It might well be that by a reorientation of the aircraft available, including the use of the Tudors again in certain areas upon which B.S.A.A. operated, we

  285
  could have got over this awkward time without having to disintegrate the third Corporation.
  This permanent change in structure sweeps away the element of competition which Cabinet Ministers of the noble Lord's Government themselves, on the introduction of the Civil Aviation Bill in 1946, praised and said was a desirable thing. If I may, I will quote just a few words from the speech of the Lord President of the Council, Mr. Herbert Morrison. He said this on the Second Reading of the Civil Aviation Bill:
  "We wish to introduce and develop in the industry the spirit of emulation, of gathering a varied experience, and a certain degree of competition between various undertakings."
  He went on to say:
  "The Minister of Civil Aviation has deliberately decided on the basis of three Corporations, each of which will have its set degree of responsibility to him and for the general operations of which he and the Parliamentary Secretary will be answerable to Parliament."
  I must be fair and tell your Lordships that the Lord President further went on to say:
  "If future experience should show either that three are too many and that two or even one would be enough, modifications can be made."
  I admit, straight away, that he said that.
  Then my mind goes to the debate which we finished not long ago, the debate which was wound up so eloquently by the noble Viscount the Leader of the House in a speech in which he was defending the position and said that we must not judge the achievements of the national corporations on a short-term view. The noble Viscount said that it would be a short-sighted view to take the measure of the success or failure of concerns which had been in public ownership for only two or three years. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. If we are to accept that argument from the noble Viscount the Leader of the House, we must not draw conclusions as regards airways Corporations which have been in public ownership for only two or three years. Like other noble Lords, I have read the debates in another place, when it was put with force that there cannot be competition in civil aviation because we cannot compare this line running with one particular aircraft with that line running with another par-
  286
  ticular aircraft. But I submit that competition can exist not only in direct operational qualities, but in many other ways—in maintenance, in handling passengers and freight, in catering and road transport. In these and in many other directions we can draw valuable comparisons between one organisation and another.
  I ask the noble Lord what has altered, beyond a temporary shortage of aircraft at the present time caused by the withdrawal of the Tudors, to cause this Bill to be introduced. Why should we not take a long-term view of civil aviation, in the same way as the noble and learned Viscount the Leader of the House asked us to take a long-tem view as regards other nationalised corporations? I believe the answer is that this is a further indication of the application of Socialist theory in our national life. I know the noble Lord disclaimed this and said he was not an amalgamationist.
  LORD PAKENHAM: Not a fanatical amalgamationist.
  LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: Not a fanatical amalgamationist. Nevertheless, in every direction we are seeing the Three Graces of nationalisation—size, monopoly and centralisation—becoming ever more present. The noble Lord was careful to say that this amalgamation of two Corporations out of three was not a preliminary step to the formation of one gigantic Corporation. The noble Lord said that it does not affect British European Airways and there was no prospect in the foreseeable future—
  LORD PAKENHAM: It has no effect on it whatever.
  LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: The noble Lord said that in the foreseeable future there will be no difference. I ask with great respect what is "the foreseeable future"? In another place the Parliamentary Secretary, the noble Lord's junior Minister, was questioned on this matter, and on that occasion the Parliamentary Secretary replied to a question as to whether we could expect an amalgamation of the two, "Not at the present time." When the noble Lord replies, could he go a little closer in definition and say whether "the foreseeable future" and "the present time" mean three years, five years, seven years or ten years? We would like to know w hat is in the minds

  287
  of the Government when they say, "Not in the foreseeable future."
  I pass now to my second criticism. It is that the supply of aircraft is not increased by one single civil aviation liner by this amalgamation; no increase in passengers or freight is brought about; and there are no great economies in manpower which could not be effected by a rationalisation of the efforts of the two Corporations without legal amalgamation and the elimination of one. To us on this side of the House it seems that something almost intangible is being lost by this amalgamation; a spark of individuality and keenness is being extinguished. I could give noble Lords comparable figures of the alleged efficiency of B.S.A.A., as against B.O.A.C.
  LORD PAKENHAM: It is very difficult.
  LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: I agree. I could give a set of figures, the noble Lord could give another set of figures to counter me; I could give another set of figures, and the noble Lord could give yet another set of figures. I agree that it is very difficult to quote chapter and verse in figures. But what I believe is indisputable is that there is something—I repeat the word—intangible in the spark of individuality, which is so valuable and which is being extinguished. The noble Lord claims that there will be a planned use of the aircraft fleets in the future. But all his plans, which have been debated at great length in another place and in less detail here to-day—if I may say so, quite rightly—were based on the assumption of deliveries of aircraft from America, the Boeing Stratocruisers and the Canadairs. I believe we are supposed to have ten Boeing Stratocruisers by the end of the year. I wish the Boeing Stratocruisers good luck, but I would hazard a guess that the noble Lord's Corporations will not have ten Boeing Stratocruisers by the end of the year. The Tudor was a much-abused aircraft, but there have been more accidents in Constellations than there have been in Tudors. The trouble is that the Tudors disappeared without any explanation. There has always been some explanation of the Constellation accidents, whether it was a right one or not. The Stratocruisers, we read almost
  288
  every day in our papers, are having to turn back through various teething troubles. I would hazard the view that improvisation will be just as necessary under the noble Lord's plan as it would be under a policy which did not amalgamate but tried to rationalise the fleets in order to overcome this temporary shortage, because the expectation of aircraft deliveries on which he bases his whole plan will not be fulfilled.
  I come now to my third criticism, which noble Lords will probably think is the most serious—namely, the danger of all the technical development and operational experience in British long-range aircraft being concentrated in one Corporation, instead of having two outlets, and dual and competitive usage and development work by two Corporations. We are told by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that in the future we shall have to depend a great deal on our export trade in this country for our ability to live. One of the great possibilities for export in this country is in this new field of development of civil aviation. But if we are going to export civil aircraft to other countries in the world, I would submit to your Lordships that we must be in a position to give the best possible product, a product which will beat our competitors from whatever country they may come. We put a handicap on ourselves if we definitely limit the user of long-range aircraft to one instead of two. I would prefer three, four or five users, because the more users you have the greater wealth of experience you can build up. I am sorry to know that all the long-range aircraft developed by the British industry will in the future for civil aviation have to pass through this one channel of home usage, instead of being able to pass through two or more.
  I would particularly mention flying boats. The question as to whether or not B.O.A.C. were flying-boat minded was dealt with in another place, and critics were rather brushed aside by the Parliamentary Secretary who said that B.S.A.A. had never seen a flying boat. That was late at night, and perhaps the words were excusable. B.S.A.A. may not have operated them but let us remember the greatest exponent of flying boats, the late Air Commodore Brackley, whose service, experience and wealth of knowledge were at the disposal of

  289
  B.S.A.A. It was largely upon his advice that B.S.A.A. decided to use the Princess flying boat, which is now under construction, and which was turned down by B.O.A.C. in 1947. We are a seafaring nation, and there is something very pleasing, I believe, to the British character that in our aviation life we should 20 as close to marine life as we can. I should be sorry to feel that those who were responsible for technical decisions in 1947, and the turning-down of flying boats, were able to-day to command a view which might prejudice not the use but the enthusiastic use—and there is a great difference between the two —of the flying boat.
  I now pass to my final criticism, which is on the question of personnel. One asks oneself: "Is this amalgamation in the interests of the personnel and the expression of their skill?" I believe the same argument applies here as in other nationalisation Bills which we have discussed in this House—that there is danger to the skilled operative in having only one employer to absorb his skill. I believe the chances of their individual protection for their skill, and the chances of advancement of the technique in which they are skilled, are lessened by the fact that there is only this one main direction in which they can apply their experience. In support of that view, I would say this. Nationalised industries so far do not seem to have pleased operatives. Central control is being increasingly resented by its staffs. Long-distance regulation has aggravated operatives in the coal industry and the railway industry, and certainly in the nationalised industries higher charges are exasperating to the consumers. Of course, I agree that policy cannot be dictated by staffs, but nevertheless their views—and particularly in technical industries—are important.
  The noble Lord made the statement —and it was also made in another place —that all those concerned were in favour of this amalgamation. I rather question that. It is true, as he said, that the Boards are in favour of it—the "big boys" are all for it, I am sure with great conviction and with genuine feeling—but the ones down the ladder are not all in favour of this amalgamation.
  LORD PAKENHAM: I actually said "of those directly responsible."
  LORD BALFOUR OF ENCHRYE: But may I ask the noble Lord whether he would not consider that pilots are directly responsible for certain important phases of operation? Can he tell me that all the pilots in the British Airlines Pilots' Association who fly in B.S.A..A. aircraft are in favour of it? After all, they are "directly responsible." I think the noble Lord, if he looks at the list of those who attended the packed meeting of protest held at Caxton Hall, will find that there were many who were not in favour.
  LORD STRABOLGI: In what sense is the word "packed" used?
  LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: A full meeting. I am sure the noble Lord would not expect anything but the straightest deal from these men. As to the engineers, I do not want to go into the vexed question of who represent the engineers of the B.S.A.A. and what union is concerned. There has been considerable discussion in another place, and we in this House may come back to that point in Committee. Fait the noble Lord must admit that there is a great element in B.S.A.A. who, out of their convictions, have protested against the action of the Government in bringing about this merger.
  Those who take an interest in these matters were greatly comforted by the assurances given by the Parliamentary Secretary in another place the night before last, when he said that the minority organisations would be taken into consideration and that no man would be penalised for expressing his views if be did not belong to one of the big units. I do not believe the noble Lord is going to have a "happy ship" with this amalgamation. The battalions have marched through the Lobbies in another place. We are not going to divide; the noble Lord is going to get his Bill. But I wonder if he might not have done better if he had done what some of us feel might have been done in the case of the dockers: gone down with his Parliamentary Secretary and met the men of B.S.A.A. in an unconventional way and explained to them what the Government were doing and made the Government ease. Incidentally I should have loved to be there to make the case against it. He might have shown what the Government are trying to do. He might then have carried those doubtful elements with him to a greater degree

  291
  than he has at the present time. I have put forward, I hope reasonably, my grounds of criticism. We feel that this Bill is endangering civil aviation by the suppression of the competitive element for no adequate long term reasons. We shall not oppose the Second Reading, but we cannot resist criticising the Bill.
  9.24 p.m.
  THE MARQUESS OF WILLINGDON: My Lords, I feel that the attention of this House should be seriously addressed to this Bill, as it is handing over a commercial corporation formed before nationalisation to a nationalised concern. B.O.A.C. are a concern which we all admire. They have built up a reputation of mercantile marine quality; they are manned by professionals who are experienced, loyal and responsible—and. I think, far from overpaid. I should like at once to record the helpfulness of the Minister in giving us so much information and in providing me personally with figures which were previously denied but which, thanks to the request of the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, have been made available. Now you are handing over to the first nationalised Corporation. Granted that it has a hoard of directors, a chairman, personal assistants to the chairman, personal representatives of the chairman, private secretaries to the chairman and a deputy chairman, but we all know that the real boss is the Minister of Civil Aviation. He has kindly provided me to-day with the figures of his staff. They total 7,535. The Treasury grades are 2,796, and other grades are 5,339. As regards the staff of B.O.A.C. to-day, the figures (again provided by the courtesy of the Minister) are 18,898. Those are split up into figures which are, of course, available. Now the number of planes flying and carrying a commercial load on Monday last in B.O.A.C.—and this is the Corporation, the first nationalised Corporation, the first experiment in nationalisation, to whom we are handing over a concern running at a profit and commercially manned—was sixty-six, with this colossal staff to keep them in the air.
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: Will the noble Lord give me again the numbers of the staffs?
  THE MARQUESS OF WILLINGDON: There are 7,535 in the Ministry and 18,898 in B.O.A.C. There were sixty-six aircraft flying carrying a commercial load on Monday last. Having been in commercial civil aviation for a great part of my life, I know from experience that there are more technical ways of judging this than by the figures available daily to the Minister—for instance, passenger miles per number of staff, ton miles per number of staff. I would like to ask the Minister whether, as regards B.O.A.C., after the experience they have had in the last few years since the war operating on their long haul, the figures completely satisfy him and compare favourably with those of operating companies of foreign concerns.
  The second question I wish to put to the Minister—and I think it is the really important thing, for us to-night—is: Can he assure the House that B.O.A.C. are really running on business lines? Because British South American Airways were. I think that is the most important point for us to ask him to answer to-night. Have B.O.A.C. really learnt economy in administration? When we had the last debate on the interests of these concerns, as I understood it there were to be two divisions in the new organisation, the East and the West Divisions, and also a manager of the home stations. They were going to sit in these wonderful new premises, the Simmonds factory on the Great West Road, with communicating doors. They were to employ three men, and a fourth is now to be added. They were to be in constant touch.
  I also want to ask the Minister: Where does Stratton House come into the picture? Is it true that the rent and loan for Stratton House is £20,000? Is it true that the whole of Stratton House is devoted to this wonderful Board, with their representatives, their technical advisers and so on, and that only one of the general managers of this Corporation has even a room in the B.O.A.C. headquarters on the Great West Road, and that room is not even in the main building? I ask noble Lords when they are driving past there in their cars to stop and look at it. Look behind Simmonds factory; you will see acres and acres of huts. I am not raising these criticisms from any political motive. All I ask is a fair deal for

  293
  B.S.A.A., a fair deal for their employees and for all the users, both commercial and passenger, who use B.S.A.A. and B.O.A.C. I do ask for the Minister's assurance that the shareholders, that long-suffering British public, John Citizen, shall benefit from this amalgamation.
  9.30 p.m.
  LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I rise to support my noble friend on the Second Reading of the Bill, and my only excuse is that I happen to have used both Corporations very considerably over recent years and twice this year. I was stranded in the West Indies when the Tudor accident took place. I have never understood, and I do not understand now, why the Tudors were withdrawn. I was most favourably impressed with them and, after all, as the noble Lord, Lord Balfour, pointed out, there have been a great many accidents with American aircraft; and those accidents continue. I had to come back by Trans-Canadair air lines after some delay. I have used B.O.A.C. also to cross the Atlantic in the orthodox way.
  In the few remarks I have to make I propose to give my impressions of the workings of these two great Corporations which are now to be amalgamated. I speak only as a passenger—but after all the passenger is the man to whom eventually you have to look for your revenues. Before I say more on that, however, I would point out that on every ground of business management the case for the amalgamation of the two services flying the Atlantic seems to be overwhelming. I hope I shall not enrage my noble friend if, after all he has said, I say that the same argument applies with equal strength to the amalgamation of the three Corporations. Although my noble friend has perhaps placated the Opposition by what he said about the foreseeable future—and what was said in another place we all know—nevertheless the operational reasons and the economic reasons all point to one Corporation to run the whole of civil aviation. I have never fully understood why we started off with three, except (and this is a tremendous compliment to the charm and persuasiveness of Lord Swinton) that when Lord Winster was Minister of Aviation he was anxious to appease Lord Swinton and, indeed, wanted to carry out his original scheme. There was, however,
  294
  some difference apparently in the Government on this point, of which I have no knowledge—
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: I can explain that to the noble Lord. We were unanimous in the National Government but, as usual, the tail wagged the dog.
  LORD STRABOLGI: I am talking about the present Government.
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: I was explaining what happened subsequently.
  LORD STRABOLGI: I am talking about this present Government, which is so adorned by my noble friends who sit on these Benches.
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: On that occasion, the tail wagged tae dog.
  LORD STRABOLGI: I do not know what the noble Viscount means by the "tail" or the "dog." I do not know how the forces were lined up. All I know is that the original scheme was practically Lord Swinton's, and I am glad to say it w as abandoned in favour of the present modified scheme. But Lord Swinton's charm and persuasiveness had so much influence (and this is all said in full compliment to him) that what I always thought was the worst feature of his scheme——namely, the creation of the three separate Corporations—was agreed to. I know that here I am in direct conflict with my noble friend. It is always sorrowful for me to be in that state. But I believe that the arguments for one Corporation are overwhelming.
  I listened with the greatest of care to my noble friend's defence for retaining the two, and I am glad, if I may say so, that he did not use the argument, which I could not follow, of my honourable friend Mr. Lindgren in another place—namely, that B.E.A. operate two-engined machines and B.O.A.C. operate fourengined machines, and therefore the services are entirely diff!rent. I suppose that presently we shall have eight-engined machines. Then will be proposed that companies still using four-engined machines should employ different methods from the ones using the eight-engined machine? I am glad that my noble friend has not been misled into using that kind of argument which I could not understand.
  LORD PAKENHAM: I went near to it.
  LORD STRABOLGI: I am going a little further, and here I am afraid that I may enrage one or two noble Lords opposite—I hope I shall. Civil aviation (and here I address myself to the noble Marquess whose speech from the Liberal Benches I listened to with great interest) is paying in scarcely any part of the world. I understand that Swiss Air show a profit though I do not know what subsidies they receive; K.L.M. show profits with very high subsidies, and one airline which runs in the Eastern states of America, a purely domestic concern—Lord Balfour of Inchrye will know about this; I think it runs traffic between Baltimore, Boston, New York and Washington—also shows profits. But the great external air organisations, Pan-American, T.W.A. and others do not, I believe, show a profit. And that will continue to be the case. I do not think they will ever show a profit while there is the same degree of overlapping and wastefulness which are bound to occur when you have a number of separate national lines using the same aerodromes and operating their own transport. In such circumstances there is bound to be waste and loss.
  An argument which I do not intend to pursue, but which I have advanced for many years, is that to overcome this waste and to operate economically, airlines must be internationalised. I have believed in that for a long time and I shall go on advocating it. I believe that when the nations wake to the realities of the situation and show a little sense, civil aviation will be internationalised; and what a great service to the cause of peace that would be! I have said what I have said only to reinforce the arguments put forward by my noble friend for at any rate amalgamating the South Atlantic Service and B.O.A.C., I think that the case which Lord Pakenham made was overwhelming, and I am very glad that your Lordships are not going to take the trouble to-night to divide against the Bill.
  There is one question which I wish to ask and which has already been touched upon by the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye. I have given my noble friend notice of it. I happen to be a flying-boat
  296
  "fan." I am an enthusiast for the great flying-boat, very largely for the same reasons which have been advanced by the noble Lord who spoke for the Opposition. I think that sea experience and sea sense incline one that way, and in view of our control over so many harbours and so many maritime territories all over the world, the need for us to develop the large flying-boat, in my opinion is incontrovertible. I ask my noble friend, without going into great detail, to tell us what are the views of his Ministry on this matter. I hope they will coincide with mine. The views of the Ministry will, of course, influence the decisions of the new amalgamated Corporation. That is putting really the same question as Lord Balfour of Inchrye put in a slightly different way. I had experience of the flying-boat over twenty years ago and again last year. I think the case for it is very strong indeed. It is only a matter of arrangement to reduce the admittedly heavy overheads.
  I would like to say how sorry I am that civil aviation is once more being pulled up by the roots to see how it is growing. I am sorry for the changes; I am sorry they are necessary. I believe that notwithstanding all that has been said about extravagance, and so on, by the noble Marquess and others, the record of British civil aviation, of the two Corporations, and also of the British European Corporation, is very high indeed, and I believe that reputation is acknowledged by foreign users. I have been using the services of these two Corporations as an ordinary passenger for a good many years. I was one of the first civilians to fly out to India with the old Imperial Airways; and I have watched developments ever since the days when in Handley Pages we went at eighty miles an hour, stopping at a capital each night —and most agreeable it was. I have seen the latest developments and the wonderful achievements and advances that have been made. In spite of all difficulties about machines, I believe that both these Corporations have done a magnificent job. Their reputation for safety, especially that of B.O.A.C., is very high. They look after passengers extremely well. If one really wants to see the contrast, travel by some of the foreign lines, especially the American, and see the difference in treatment, courtesy and efficiency. If you want to be delayed and kept kicking your

  297
  heels two or three days, travel in an average American line—and I am afraid some of the other foreign lines are not much better. But if you want efficiency, certainty and the feeling of confidence, go by British Airways.
  Why should all these deteriorate because we wish to bring about a more or less paper arrangement of amalgamating the two? Pilots with experience in the South Atlantic will continue to fly the South Atlantic, and maintenance crews will continue to serve on the same machines belonging to one Corporation instead of to two. What difference will that make? I cannot see the idea that the amalgamation of these two well-tried instruments will destroy the men's spirit, alter their appreciation, and injure that intangible psychological value that the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, described so vividly. Why should not these men continue to do their best for the country, to whichever service of civil aviation they belong? I hope the noble Lord will be fully justified in the steps which have been taken. On balance I think the justification is overwhelming, and I hope there will be no unreasonable criticisms, certainly not of the efficiency and devotion of the great mass of personnel of these two Corporations, now to become one great service.
  9.43 p.m.
  LORD PAKENHAM: My Lords, I do not think anyone will accuse the noble Lord, after his remarks, of being a Government "stooge." The general effect of his remarks, which are based on firsthand experience, is all the more helpful to us. May I say from the Front Bench that we were interested in all that the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, had to say. He speaks with a great wealth of practical experience behind him. I will not follow him at great length through his remarks, as we shall have another stage to thresh out these things more closely, but I think it would be discourteous not to touch at least on the four main headings he raised. I hope he will accept from me—as I am sure he will—that I have not been influenced by any kind of political pressure or any ideology in deciding that this change is necessary. If I have a personal interest, I hope it is one proper to my position—to bring down the deficits and secure
  298
  thoroughly creditable results for British civil aviation. I am sure the noble Lord will take it from me that that is the only way to act in the circumstances.
  I would like to say a word on the subject of competition. The noble Lord was the first to point out that in no real sense can we talk about competition between B.O.A.C. and Perhaps we can talk about emulation—two different public bodies doing different jobs and returning figure; which may be taken into comparison with one another. But I ask him—and he has far more experience of flying than I shall ever have —whether, in fact, the real test and the real competition will not always be between B.O.A.C. and those foreign companies flying similar routes. That must be the yardstick, although tonight it has not been discussed so freely as it was in another place. However. I go some way in the noble Lord's direction. I think it is very important that we should have the fullest light thrown on the various activities of the Corporation. In another place my honourable friend my Parliamentary Secretary was able to reassure the members on that subject, and I hope I shall also be able to reassure the noble Lord at another stage.
  The noble Lord asked me—and I am glad he did—to say ye: again that we have no intention whatever of bringing B.E.A. into this amalgamation. He said I alluded to the "fore seeable future." To be pedantic, I believe the actual words I used were: "So far as it is possible to see into the future." They have the same meaning, and I, of course, accept those as my words. I am ready to go any distance, short of giving a pledge to people in B.E.A., which they might afterwards say had been broken if events took a completely unexpected turn. That is the long and short of it. So far as I am concerned, this will not happen. But I really cannot stand here and say on behalf of the Government that it will not happen, because if something peculiar occurred and it was done, and I had given a pledge, noble Lords would rightly say: "You cannot act in that way as you have given a pledge." I am ready to go as fix as possible to emphasise the fact that it will not happen, short of giving any kind of pledge.

  299
  I now come to the third point, which is admittedly rather difficult to assess across the Table—namely, the question of whether it is desirable that there should be only one consumer for long-range aircraft, with all that that implies in the way of technical development. I myself believe that no adverse results will occur, but that the effect will be the opposite. Under that same heading the noble Lord raised the question of flying boats, to which the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, also alluded. Lord Balfour made the point that it would be regrettable if the same people who, according to him, turned down the flying boats in 1947 were still in charge of the situation, because they could hardly be expected to be enthusiastic about flying boats. I must reserve my attitude as to what exactly took place in 1947, because I was not then responsible for these affairs. From what I know, I believe there has been a good deal of misconception on the point of the attitude of certain gentlemen who were previously responsible for B.O.A.C. But this I do know, and it comes directly under my eyes. The new chairman, Sir Miles Thomas, who was not connected—at least, I presume he was not—with B.O.A.C. at the time the noble Lord has in mind, is most enthusiastic about flying boats. Therefore, I can say—and I know he would wish me to say it—that he will guarantee that there will be enthusiastic use of the flying boats that have been ordered.
  I think it will suffice if I deal with only one more point to-night—namely, the attitude of the pilots. I have, in fact, seen the representatives of the pilots generally, and no protest was made on this subject. I can inform the noble Lord and the House that the General Secretary of the British Air Line Pilots' Association was present when this policy was approved, and he was among those who raised no objection to the merger. In other words, there is no reason to suppose that the pilots as a body are opposed to the merger. If any official objection had been raised on their behalf it would certainly have come to me. I cannot speak for every individual, but that is the official position.
  I turn now to the observations of the noble Marquess, Lord Willingdon, which, if I may say so, even at this late hour,
  300
  were far too short—short, but pregnant. I would just touch upon one or two of his points. He seemed to indicate that my Ministry was rather large. I should have hoped that the noble Marquess, with his great knowledge of aviation, would realise that a very small proportion—a few score—are directly concerned with supervising the corporations. The great majority are not in London at all, but are running the aerodromes, and at the headquarters a very large proportion are directing those who are running the aerodromes and ancillary activities. Really, the noble Marquess should not have begun to discuss my Ministry in this connection! We should be delighted if he would come and look at our arrangements to see all that we are doing, and if he can suggest any way in which the staff can be reduced it would be interesting to hear it. I would say this. We have had a very close examination lately of my staff. Undoubtedly quite a number of them are overworked, and therefore I do not want to hold out any suggestion that there is any economy to be made there. If the noble Marquess has any concrete suggestions, let us hear of them, but it does not bear closely on this point, because, relatively speaking, only a handful are concerned with the Corporations.
  The noble Marquess asked about Stratton House. With regard to the figure for the rent I cannot help him, but I can inform him that Stratton House is occupied by the members of the senior staff as well as members of the Board. When the Brentford accommodation is improved, it will accommodate more staff and enable Stratton House accommodation to be released, except for small requirements. I therefore hope that the noble Marquess will realise that we are doing everything possible to economise in this connection. The noble Marquess then put wide questions of a kind to which I am certainly not going to give a dogmatic and complacent answer—indeed, that would be the worst possible service to render. He asked about B.O.A.C., and whether I am satisfied that we are running on business lines. Sir Miles Thomas, who is the new chairman and who has been concerned with the reorganisation with Mr. Whitney Straight for the last year is, I think we shall all agree, a first-class business man, and if he does not run the Corporation on busi-

  301
  ness lines, I do not know who will. I hope the noble Marquess will be assured that business lines and commercial practice will be the essence of the whole affair.
  I will give the noble Marquess one set of figures— and one only—for the expenditure in pence per capacity ton mile. In 1946–47 it was 76.2d., in 1947–48 69.7d., and in 1948–49 it is estimated at 59.11d., so the figures are improving fairly rapidly.
  LORD STRABOLGI: That is B.O.A.C.?
  LORD PAKENHAM: Yes. I emphasise that we shall not achieve the results we are all looking for until the new aircraft come along, and we hope that when that happens we shall see a great deal of improvement. I will not go over the old ground again. We know that B.O.A.C., compared with its main foreign competitors has been handicapped as a result of the decision (from which none of us is now going to run away) to pursue the "Fly British" policy. That has handicapped B.O.A.C. and B.S.A.A. in the past. The handicap has not been so great in the case of B.E.A.C. Therefore, to compare our Corporations with foreign operators in any way which is really helpful is not easy. If noble Lords ask me whether I am satisfied with the level of costs, even with the existing aircraft, let me say that I am never satisfied. I shall never be satisfied in that regard. But I am satisfied with the spirit and the way in which the thing is beginning to move. I am certainly very hopeful about the future of British civil aviation, and in particular about the results which will accrue from the amalgamation we are now discussing. I look forward to noble Lords going into these matters in greater detail later.
  I end as I began, and as I indicated in the middle of my speech, by thanking noble Lords for coming forward to try to get this matter settled as soon as possible. If I may venture one personal regret it is—in spite of the extraordinarily compelling remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye— that the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, has sat there beside him all through without saying a word. I hope there will never be another Civil Aviation debate in the future when that occurs.
  On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

  NURSES (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
  9.57 p.m.
  Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
  Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Morrison.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  House in Committee accordingly:
  [The LORD MERTHYR in the Chair]
  Clauses 1 to 6 agrees to.
  Clause 7 [The Mental Nurses Committee]:
  LORD MORRISON: May I say at the outset that, while there are a good many Amendments to this Bill on the Marshalled List, the great bulk of them are either drafting or consequential Amendments, and the others are Amendments dealing with minor points on which, to the best of my knowledge, there is no difference of opinion? This Amendment is preliminary to the next Amendment, and both are drafting. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 5, line 8, at beginning insert—
  ("The following matters, namely (a)")
  —
  (Lord Morrison.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD MORRISON: This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 5, line 12, after ("question") insert("and
  (b) any matter relating to the training of persons for admission to the supplementary part of the register containing the names of nurses trained in the nursing and care of persons suffering from mental diseases or to the supplementary part of the register containing the names of nurses trained in the nursing and care of persons suffering from mental defect "). —(Lord Morrison.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD MORRISON: This is also a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 5, line 13, after ("question") insert ("as aforesaid").—(Lord Morrison.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD MORRISON: This is another drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 5, line 22, after ("Committee") insert ("on behalf of the Council").—(Lord Morrison.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 8 [Registration of nurses trained abroad]:
  LORD MORRISON: This is a drafting Amendment. With the two following Amendments it makes it clear that a nurse trained abroad must have successfully completed his training and must have passed any examinations attached to it before he can claim to be registered in Scotland under this clause. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 5, line 40, leave out from ("that") to ("in") in line 42 and insert ("in a country or territory outside the United Kingdom, he successfully completed his training either generally as a nurse or as a nurse of some special class").—(Lord Morrison.)
  LORD CLYDESMUIR: This seems only to follow the English example, but we on this side do not object to it for that reason. It seems a desirable thing to ensure that the training has been satisfactorily completed, and we agree with the noble Lord's Amendment.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD MORRISON: This Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 6, line 5, leave out ("has been trained") and insert ("successfully completed his training").—(Lord Morrison.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD MORRISON: This Amendment also is consequential. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 6, line 8, leave out ("he has been so trained") and insert ("his training was").(Lord Morrison.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD MORRISON: This is a drafting Amendment which transfers the words mentioned in the Amendment to their grammatically appropriate place in the clause. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  304
  Page 6, line 15, leave out ("if they are satisfied that he is of good character").(Lord Morrison.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD MORRISON: The last Amendment left out these words in line 15. This Amendment inserts them in line 16. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 6, line 16, after ("may") insert ("if they are satisfied that he is of good character"). —(Lord Morrison.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 9 [Closing of parts of the register]:
  LORD MORRISON LORD MORRISON moved, after subsection (2) to insert:
  "() No request under the last foregoing subsection shall be made by the Council with respect to—

  (a) the supplementary part of the register containing the names of nurses trained in the nursing and care of persons suffering from mental diseases;

  (b) the supplementary part of the register containing the names of nurses trained in the nursing and care of persons suffering from mental defect; or

  (c) the supplementary part of the register containing the names of nurses trained in the nursing of sick children,

  unless the Council are satisfied that means exist whereby members of the public can readily ascertain whether a registered nurse has been trained in the nursing and care of persons suffering from mental diseases or in the nursing and care of persons suffering from mental defect or in the nursing of sick children as the case may be."
  The noble Lord said: This Amendment is rather lengthy. It debars the General Nursing Council from asking for the closure of the principal supplementary parts of the Register unless they are satisfied that other means exist for enabling nurses with special training to be identified by the public. What would happen in practice is that, when the supplementary registers are closed, the Council would attach an appropriate distinguishing mark in the main Register to the names of nurses who had undergone particular forms of training, and who would under present conditions have their names entered on the appropriate supplementary Register. The Amendment corresponds to one made to the English Bill on Report stage in your Lordships' House. Apart from the merits

  305
  of the Amendment, it is desirable that there should be similar provisions on this subject in the English and in the Scottish Bills because of the statutory reciprocity between the Scottish and the English registers of nurses. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 6, line 36, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Morrison.)
  LORD CLYDESMUIR: We agree that this is a desirable Amendment. The drafting differs slightly from the English version for technical reasons. I understand that in Scotland nurses for mental defectives are entered in a separate supplementary part of the Register. Hence the difference in wording. I presume the same end is achieved?
  LORD MORRISON: Yes.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 10 [Provisions relating to the approval of training institutions]:
  LORD MORRISON: This Amendment is drafting. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 7, line 32, leave out from the beginning to ("may") in line 36 and insert—
  "The Council shall notify their final determination of any such question as aforesaid to the persons to whom they are required by the last foregoing subsection to give such a notice as is therein mentioned and any such persons.—(Lord Morrison.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD MORRISON: This Amendment is consequential on the last Amendment. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 7, line 37, leave out ("such person") and insert ("them").—(Lord Morrison.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD MORRISON: This Amendment relieves an appellant from the necessity of himself applying to the Lord President of the Court of Session for the appointment of arbiters to decide his appeal. The procedure contemplated is that the appellant will notify the Council of his desire to have the matter referred to such arbiters, and the Council will then make the necessary application. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 7, line 39, leave out from ("appointed") to ("by") in line 40 and insert ("for the purpose").—(Lord Morrison.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD MORRISON: This Amendment and the next correct drafting defects. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 7, line 42. leave out ("nominated") and insert ("appointed").—(Lord Morrison.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 7, line 43, leave out ("section") and insert ("subsection").—(Lord Morrison.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 11 to 14 agreed to.
  Clause 15 [Allowances to members of the Council and the Assistant Nurses Committee]:
  LORD MORRISON: This also corrects a drafting defect. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 9, line 14, at end insert ("as the case may ho").—(Lord Morrison.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 15, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 16 to 18 agreed to.
  Clause 19 [Interpretation]:
  LORD MORRISON: This Amendment makes it clear that references in the Bill to supplementary parts of the Register include references to parts not specifically created by the 1919 Act as supplementary parts, but which have been set up by rules made in pursuance of that Act. The only statutory supplementary parts are the parts for male nurses, for mental nurses and for sick children's nurses; the parts for nurses for mental defectives and for fever nurses have been set up by rules. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 11, line 11, at end insert—
  ("" supplementary part of the register" means a supplementary part thereof mentioned in subsection (2) of section two of the Act of 1919 or prescribed in pursuance of paragraph (e) of that subsection").— (Lord Morrison.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 19, as amended, agreed to.
  Remaining clause agreed to.
  First Schedule:
  3. Of the members of the Council appointed by the Secretary of State two shall be registered nurses employed by local health authorities appointed by him after consultation with such persons and bodies as he thinks fit, being persons and bodies having special knowledge and experience of the work of nurses so employed.
  LORD CLYDESMUIR LORD CLYDESMUIR moved to leave out paragraph 3 and insert:
  "3. The members of the Council appointed by the Secretary of State shall include—

  (a) two registered nurses employed in services provided under Part III of the National Health Service (Scotland) Act, 1947, appointed by him after consultation with such persons and bodies as he thinks fit, being persons and bodies having special knowledge and experience of the work of nurses so employed;

  (b) registered medical practitioners, appointed by him after consultation with such organisations representative of the medical profession as he thinks fit;

  (c) persons with experience in hospital management, appointed by him after consultation with such persons and bodies having experience in hospital management as he thinks fit; and

  (d) persons with experience in local government, appointed by him after consultation with such local health authorities, or such organisations representative of local health authorities, as he thinks fit."

  The noble Lord said: This Amendment is, I think, the only one of substance on the Marshalled List, and as it is the result of an agreement between the noble Lord and myself, I do not anticipate any difficulty in its acceptance. I will not weary your Lordships with any lengthy description, but a word or two is necessary. On the Second Reading of the Bill it was pointed out that the composition of the new General Nursing Council appeared to lack specification as to the qualification of the members (eleven, I think, in number) to be appointed by the Secretary of State. I was reminded that in a previous Act of 1919 there had been more precise specification, and I received representations on this subject. I know that the noble Lord has received representations from the local authorities and from the nurses in this regard, so this Amendment seeks to meet that situation—that is,
  308
  to give more precise direction as to the type of person to be appointed by the Secretary of State to the General Nursing Council.
  If your Lordships will look at the paper you will see that subparagraph (a) of the Amendment repeats in essence the existing paragraph 3 of the Bill, and this redraft is necessary to secure that the nurses employed by voluntary bodies in contract with local authorities instead of directly by local authorities will not be debarred from appointment. I think that clearly that is a wise provision. Subparagraph (b) of the Amendment introduces registered medical practitioners and directs that they should be included in the composition of the Council. The third subparagraph names special persons with experience of hospital management. Subparagraph (d) names persons with experience in local government. I think the noble Lord will agree—because, as I say, his Department has been in touch with me—that this will give wise direction and yet not tie the hands of the Secretary of State too closely in making these appointments. I think it will also meet very largely the representations of those bodies which have come before us with proposals for improving the Bill in this respect. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 12, line 31, leave out paragraph 3, and insert the said new paragraph.—(Lord Clydesmuir.)
  LORD MORRISON: The noble Lord, Lord Clydesmuir, has given a brief and absolutely accurate description of the Amendment, and in view of the lateness of the hour I think it will suffice if I say—as indeed the noble Lord himself said—that this Amendment has been placed on the Marshalled List after discussions which have taken place between us. We accept it and we believe that it makes a considerable improvement in the Bill.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD MORRISON: This Amendment makes it clear that persons appointed to fill casual vacancies must have the qualifications (if any) which would have been required of them had they been elected or appointed in the ordinary way to the place they are filling on a casual basis. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 13, line 4, at end insert—
  ("() A person appointed to fill a casual vacancy occurring in the place of an elected member of the Council shall be a person who would be qualified for election to that place if an election were to take place on the date on which he is appointed and a person appointed to fill any other casual vacancy shall, if the place vacant was originally filled by a person required by the foregoing provisions of this Schedule to be a person of a particular class, himself be of that class.")—(Lord Morrison.)
  LORD CLYDESMUIR: This Amendment would seem to ensure continuity of representation, and therefore appears to be desirable. We on this side certainly have no objection to it.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  First Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
  Second Schedule [Regional Nurse-Training Committees]:
  LORD MORRISON: This Amendment and the next one are both drafting. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 14, line 6, leave out ("sub-committees") and insert ("any sub-committee.")—[Lord Morrison.]
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD MORRISON: I beg to move the next Amendment.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 14, line 13, at end insert ("as the case may be, as may be specified in the order.")—(Lord Morrison.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD POLWARTH LORD POLWARTH moved to add to paragraph 2:
  "Provided that no person shall be qualified to audit the accounts referred to in sub-paragraph (d) of this paragraph unless he is a member of one or more of the following bodies:—

  The Society of Accountants in Edinburgh;

  The Institute of Accountants and Actuaries in Glasgow;

  The Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales;

  The Society of Incorporated Accountants and Auditors;

  The Society of Accountants in Aberdeen;

  The Association of Certified and Corporate Accountants;

  The Institute of Chartered Accountants in Ireland; or

  Any other body of accountants established in the United Kingdom and for the time
  310
  being recognised by the Board of Trade for the purposes of the provisions of section 161 of the Companies Act, 1948, relating to the qualification for appointment as auditor of a company other than in exempt private company."

  The noble Lord said: This Schedule provides that the Secretary of State may make regulations for the auditing of the accounts of regional nurse-training committees. The object of this Amendment is to ensure that these accounts shall be audited by members of a recognised professional body. I should make it clear that I have an interest in that I am a member of one of these bodies, but my reason for moving this Amendment is merely to ensure that the accounts are audited according to professional standards.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 14, line 20, at end insert the said proviso.—(Lord Polwarth.)
  LORD MORRISON: I admit at once that it is usual to insert a provision of this kind into Bills where Ministers are appointing auditors for finds derived from other than Exchequer money, for example, in the Electricity Act and the current Legal Aid Bill; but it is not customary to do so where the funds concerned come entirely from the Exchequer, as is the case with the regional nurse-training committee. These are usually audited by departmental auditors, who have been specially trained inside the Departments and do not always possess outside qualifications. The financial affairs of the committees are very much interwoven with those of the regional hospital boards, where accounts are audited by departmental officers, and it is most desirable that both sets of accounts should be audited by the same people. Therefore, think the noble Lord will appreciate my difficulty in accepting this Amendment.
  LORD POLWARTH: I thank the noble Lord for his reply. I think it is true to say that in Scotland we have not the same system of district auditors as in England, and I am not entirely happy that this audit should be carried out by an official inside the Department. I think it is also true to say that the monies expended by these committees are furnished by the General Nursing Council, whose accounts are audited, I believe, by professional audit. At this hour I do

  311
  not wish to enter into any argument about it and we may possibly discuss it later; at this stage I am prepared to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Second Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
  Third Schedule [The Mental Nurses Committee]:
  LORD MORRISON LORD MORRISON moved, in paragraph 4, after sub-paragraph (1) to insert:
  "() A person shall not be appointed to fill a casual vacancy in the place of any member of the Committee unless he possesses the qualification required by the foregoing provisions of this Schedule for election or, as the case may be, appointment under the said provisions to that place."
  The noble Lord said: This Amendment makes clear that persons appointed to fill casual vacancies must have the qualifications which would have been required of them had they been elected or appointed in the ordinary way to the place they are filling on a casual basis. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 15, line 41, at end insert the said new sub-paragraph.—[Lord Morrison.]
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Third Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
  Remaining Schedule agreed to.
  House resumed.
  Then, Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended (pursuant to the Resolution of July 13), Bill reported, with Amendments; Bill read 3a; Amendments (Privilege) made; Bill passed and sent to the Commons.

  HOUSING (SCOTLAND) BILL
  10.20 p.m.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  LORD MORRISON: My Lords, I rise to move the Second Reading of the Housing (Scotland) Bill. During the past few weeks a Housing Bill for England and Wales has been passing through its various stages of your Lordships' House. The Scottish Bill now before you is the counterpart of that Bill. Its main objects are the same, and I
  312
  can sum them up in four short sentences. The first object is to extend the powers of local authorities to deal with the housing, not merely of those usually referred to as the working classes, but of all members of the community. The second is to make financial assistance available to local authorities, to private persons, and to housing associations, for the improvement of existing houses. The third is to provide certain new special subsidies for other purposes; and the fourth to make certain amendments to the Scottish Housing Acts so that they will form a more comprehensive and flexible instrument of housing policy.
  In view of the debates which we have already had upon the English measure, your Lordships will not expect me to deal in much detail with the provisions of the Scottish Bill. But I should like to say something of how the Bill differs from the English Bill, and to invite your interest in some of those provisions which are common to both Bills but which are of particular significance to Scotland. Of the common provisions, the most important to Scotland are undoubtedly those in Part II of the Bill, providing for financial assistance to local authorities, to private persons and to housing associations for the improvement of existing housing accommodation. A housing policy for Scotland, however, could not be regarded as well balanced or even adequate if it did not take into account the conservation of existing house property as well as new building. Your Lordships know, I think, how solidly constructed are the stone houses built in Scotland in the days before the First World War. The interiors of many of these houses, however, belie their external appearance. Thousands of them are seriously deficient in sanitary and other conveniences but are well worth improving for the benefit of the families who must continue to live in them for many years to come. Large numbers of them are conveniently sited in relation to places of work and community services. Indeed, it is in the national interest to prevent such houses from getting beyond the stage when they are suitable for improvement at all.
  These were the main conclusions reached by the Scottish Housing Advisory Committee in the MacTaggart

  313
  Report on Modernising our Homes published in 1947. Part II of the Bill is based upon the recommendations in that Report. The terms of the Bill are so drawn as to cover not only the improvement of a house as it stands, but the subdivision of a large house into several dwellings, and the combination of small houses in tenements and terraces to provide larger dwellings and thus relieve overcrowding. There is considerable scope for the combination of houses in Scotland, which is still a country mainly of small houses. But as combination involves the loss of separate dwellings, much of this form of improvement will have to wait until the new housing programme is sufficiently advanced to make it easier for alternative accommodation to be found for displaced families. Indeed, it will be obvious to your Lordships that an improved programme must be closely dovetailed into the new housing programme in order that we may avoid diverting labour and materials from what must still have first priority—the building of new houses in areas where they are most needed.
  As in the English Bill, the grants to private persons are available only for houses which are owner-occupied or which are occupied on an ordinary tenancy basis. Grants will not be available for the improvement of tied houses in town or country. The normal grant from a local authority to a private person is a maximum of one-half of the owner's share of the expense of improvement. The normal maximum expense which may be approved is £600—giving a normal maximum grant of £300. The Bill provides, however, for the relaxation of this £600 limit on the approved expense of improvement in exceptional cases. It also provides for grant of a higher proportion than one-half of any such additional expense if the house being improved is of special architectural or historic interest.
  There are two special Scottish features in the improvement provisions which I should like to mention. Like the English Bill, the Scottish measure provides financial assistance for improvement on the basis that the resultant dwellings will have an estimated life of thirty years. The Scottish Bill, however, provides for the relaxation of this condition in exceptional cases, so long as the estimated
  314
  life is not less than ten years. This relaxation, which is based upon a recommendation by the MacTiggart Report, is designed to give the local authority more flexible powers in dealing with houses which may be due for demolition for road widening or other planning reasons before a period of thirty years expires. If such houses are seriously lacking in sanitary conveniences—and many of them are—it seems a pity that the occupiers should not have the benefit to some degree of the provisions of the Bill so that they can live in reasonable comfort until demolition falls due. There are appropriate safeguards to present abuse of this relaxation.
  The second special Scottish feature is a financial one. The ordinary Exchequer contribution to the local authority—whether for improvement carried out by the local authority or towards the cost of grants paid by them to private persons and housing associations—is three quarters of the local authority's net expenses. In the Highlands and Islands, where the resources of local authorities are more limited, this proportion is increased to seven-eighths.
  I now pass to one or two of the miscellaneous provisions in the Parts III and IV of the Bill. One of the provisions of special Scottish significance is that for the payment of additional subsidy for building new houses in special materials to preserve the character of the surroundings. Building in stone is more expensive than building in brick—by £100 or more per house. Building in stone is also, unfortunately, very much slower than other forms of construction, and for that reason alone it could not at present be used on a widespread scale. The additional subsidy is, therefore, not intended for general stone building, but for special cases where the cost of providing a house is specifically enhanced because of the use of such special materials—for example, small groups of houses in our proposed national parks, in other areas of unusual natural beauty, or in gap sites in streets of historic interest or containing notable examples of Scottish domestic architecture.
  As in England and Wales, local authorities will be enabled to provide a service of meals and laundry facilities or services as part of their housing operations. These facilities and services are

  315
  intended principally for hostels or blocks of flats in the cities and larger towns. The Bill also proposes to give statutory sanction to the long-standing practice of local authorities in selling furniture to their tenants. I should like to assure your Lordships that it is the intention of the Government that the provision of these facilities and services should be self-supporting and not a charge on public funds. Local authorities will be advised in these terms.
  Finally, the Bill contains a number of amendments to prepare the way for consolidation. The principal Scottish Housing Act is the Act of 1925. Since 1925 there have been eleven Scottish Housing Acts and this Bill makes the number twelve. All of those concerned with central and local administration of these Acts are keenly aware of the need for consolidation. The opportunity has accordingly been taken in this Bill to repeal and amend in advance a number of obsolete provisions so that a new Consolidation Bill can be prepared which will be as simple and as up-to-date as possible. I commend this Bill to your Lordships. Improvement of existing houses will be a growing housing operation. It may be some time before the full benefits of the Bill as a whole will be widely visible on the Scottish housing scene, but we must make a beginning, and I think that it is right that we should do so now. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Morrison.)
  10.30 p.m.
  LORD POLWARTH: My Lords, I feel rather in the position of the twelfth man who has been told on the eve of the match that he has got to play, and I hope your Lordships will excuse any shortcomings on that account. I would point out also that there are many noble Lords who are far better acquainted with housing conditions in Scotland than I am, and I know for sure that some of them would have been present here to take part in this debate had it not been for the extremely short notice they received. I know it is not easy to avoid this, but I think it is a fact that the earliest notice that noble Lords in Scotland can have had of the Second Reading
  316
  of this Bill would have been in some cases on Saturday and in quite a number of cases on Monday. I also consider it deplorable that a Bill effecting such fundamental changes in Scottish Housing law should have to be taken at this hour of the night. I do not for a moment blame the noble Lord opposite for either of these facts, nor do I blame those responsible for arranging the Business of this House. The responsibility rests entirely with His Majesty's Government for the state of comparative legislative indigestion which they have succeeded in inducing by this time in their programme.
  We are grateful to Lord Morrison for giving us such a concise and factual account of this Bill. It was particularly pleasing that we have managed to avoid the political implications which on occasions are brought into this subject. I think we on this side in general welcome the policy laid down by this Bill. A great part of it is what we have been pressing for for some time past, and we could wish only that certain provisions of the Bill had been introduced at a rather earlier date. I believe that it was in 1945 that the present Government repealed the last Act which governed the improvement and reconditioning of houses in Scotland. A promise was made at the time that we were to have a better provision.
  The Committee investigating the matter published their Report in, I think, February, 1947. It is now nearly two and a half years since that Report was published, and here we are with a measure only just introduced—in the last year of the present Parliament, though the promises were made in the first year. However, better late than never! Perhaps it is a consolation that in this matter of reconditioning the lead was in fact given by Scotland, since Mr. Tom Johnston gave to the MacTaggart Committee the task of reporting on the possibility of this reconditioning of houses. And although, unfortunately, we have had to wait until after England to get our Bill, we do, in general, as I have said, welcome the measure. Perhaps we may not be quite so sanguine as the noble Lord about the results that will flow from some parts of it. We feel that in this measure there has not been shown quite so much regard as there might have been for the very different position of housing in Scotland

  317
  from that in England. The housing position in Scotland is, on the whole, more serious, and at the same time it is of a different nature. That is largely due to the anomalies of the rating system which at present exist in Scotland.
  If the noble Lord will forgive me, I will go through the Bill as briefly as I can. I should like to leave out Part I for the moment and refer to it later. Part II deals with the grants for the reconditioning and improvement of property and results from the Report of the MacTaggart Committee. In passing, I would say that I think we ought to congratulate the Committee not only on the nature of the Report but on the extremely readable form in which it was presented. I think the lay-out and the general get-up set a good example which might well be followed by other Departments when introducing White Papers and other documents. As Lord Morrison said, in Scotland we have a remarkably large number of these substantial stone houses, and it is probably true to say that a good many of those houses, provided that they are maintained and modernised, will still be standing after quite a number of the houses that have been built in the last twenty years, and which are being built at the present day, are no longer standing. I do not think many of us will be there to prove the fact, but I regard that as most probable. The provisions regarding the grants to local authorities are on the whole acceptable. I know that the City of Edinbugh are most anxious for this Bill to go through in order that they can go ahead with improvement and reconditioning. We on this side will do everything to see that the Bill goes through before the House rises.
  When we come to the provisions for grants to private persons to improve property, I must say that we are not quite so enthusiastic. The Report of the MacTaggart Committee recommended grants for these purposes of up to 75 per cent. The Bill provides only for grants up to 50 per cent. While that may be perfectly satisfactory in England, I would point out that in Scotland, owing to the difference in our rating systems, the result is not nearly so satisfactory, because we in Scotland have an owner's rate as well as an occupier's rate, and this reduces considerably the amount of return which an owner will have on the money which
  318
  he has spent. I do not want to go into the figures because they were gone into fully in another place, but I think it was convincingly shown that the increased rent which an owner is allowed to charge as the result of an improvement will hardly meet the increased costs which he will incur—if indeed it will meet them—with his increased rates, his increased Schedule A tax and the increased repairs to property. That being the case, I think it is unlikely that a great number of private owners will be tempted to go ahead with schemes under this Bill.
  I do not want to go into this very vexed question of service houses which, as your Lordships know, are excluded from the benefits of giants under this Bill. I think in Scotland it is of considerably greater importance than it is in England, owing to the nature of our farming and the general geography and lay-out of our land. I feel that what is required are service cottages on the farms, and that the local authority should construct a sufficient number of small houses and cottages, not large ones but two and three-roomed buildings suitable for the old and retired people. By that means the greatest economy in building would be secured, and everybody would be satisfied. My noble friend Lord Airlie, will deal with this subject, so I will not go into it any further. However, I do feel that we are rather up against a stone wall. When the English Bill was passing through this House, one of Lord Morrison's colleagues stated categorically the Government's attitude. He said:
  "the present Government are not in favour of tied cottages and therefore they are opposed to doing anything which may in any way encourage the continuance of tied cottages."
  We could not have anything plainer than that. I will not now go into that matter any further, because I do not wish to make the noble Lord, Lord Morrison, have to emulate his colleague in the magnificent stone-walling performance which he put up on that occasion.
  The noble Lord mentioned the special cases in which grants can be given. I think I may say that we are in general agreement with them—namely, for preserving or building houses in traditional materials where that is considered a good thing, the construction of hostels, and particularly for the conducting of experiments in connection with building methods. I attach very great importance

  319
  to that, particularly improvements connected with new methods of internal heating. While the Scottish climate is admirable in many ways, I think it is essential that it should be kept in its proper place, which is out of doors.
  The noble Lord then touched on the miscellaneous provisions of the Bill—that is, the provision of board and laundry and the power to sell furniture. I do not think we can seriously object to the provision of board and laundry, but I feel that this service must be provided on an economic basis. It would be wrong that there should be any question of its becoming a charge on the rates, and another subsidised service. I feel that at a later stage we might insert in the Bill a provision that at any rate over a period of years these services should be self-supporting and that, failing that, the local authorities should be compelled to discontinue them. I am not quite so happy about the provision regarding selling furniture to tenants, although I understand in fact it has been the practice in certain local authorities. I think this matter should be watched with the greatest care, because the provision of cheap furniture is now on a pretty competitive basis, and there should not in general be any necessity for local authorities to enter this field.
  Finally, I would like to come back to Part I to which the noble Lord made reference, mainly to deal with the question of deleting from the duties of local authorities to provide accommodation the reference to the working classes. I believe we should welcome the abolition of this distinction. There is no reason why the noble Lord and his colleagues opposite, just because they continue work until such a late hour of the night and do not necessarily "knock off" on the dot of five, should be distinguished in any way from their fellow beings when it comes to the question of the provision of accommodation—indeed, in many ways I think they are even more deserving. But there is one question that is raised by this provision and which, I think, is a serious question—namely, to what extent should housing become a subsidised social service? We know that to-day to a large extent it is so subsidised. The question is, whether this should continue or some effort should be made to put housing on an economic basis. I throw that out only because it
  320
  is a question which obviously requires a good deal of thought. After all, the cost of providing houses and shelter has largely become concealed from the average man at the present day. At present values, his normal rent is probably about equivalent to about twenty cigarettes a day. It is an interesting comparison, and one could go on dealing with it for a long time. But in my view it is a problem which will have to be faced sooner or later, whether this service is to continue to be subsidised to the extent it is or whether we are to put it on an economic basis.
  I hope the noble Lord will forgive me if I return now to what I mentioned before, and what I am sure is one of the main reasons for the present housing shortage of Scotland, and one of the main obstacles to further progress—namely, the rating system. We may be told that this problem should have been tackled long ago before the war. Perhaps it should; but, after all, in those days with rates at the level that they then were, the problem was not nearly so serious. At the present day, with costs and rates at the levels they have reached, this problem is extremely serious and it will have to be tackled sooner or later. I cannot help feeling it is like that awkward letter which always gets to the bottom of the "pending" tray. It is not an easy one to answer and so it goes to the bottom; but sooner or later it must be answered, and the longer it is left the more difficult it is to answer. I do not know, but perhaps I am right in assuming that the noble Lord intends that this problem should be left over for the successors of the present Government to tackle. I will not keep your Lordships any longer at this hour but I would like to say that we welcome this Bill so far as it goes. We think that perhaps it might have gone a bit further, and we think it might also have been introduced at an earlier date. But now that we have it we wish it well, and we hope that perhaps greater advantages will flow from it than on first appearance seems likely.
  10.40 p.m.
  THE EARL OF AIRLIE: My Lords, I have no wish to be pugnacious at this time of night. In fact, quite frankly most of the pugnacity has gone out through the bottom of my shoes waiting for this

  321
  excellent moment. But I think your Lordships will allow me to stress on my behalf and that of other noble Lords what the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, has just said in regard to the conduct of Scottish Business in this House. I myself had notice of this Bill two days ago. Had it been a measure not of such importance as housing one would not perhaps have minded so much, but this relates to what after all is probably one of the root causes of half the unrest and trouble in the country to-day, and we find that sufficient notice is not given to allow more than three noble Lords from Scotland—two of whom are resident in London—to be here. To say the leant of it, I think it shows extremely bad management. I hope that the noble Lord who is in charge of the Bill will make representations to the noble Viscount the Leader of the House to see that this sort of thing does not happen again. I think I had to speak to him once before about this same matter—perhaps he remembers it—but I am afraid that what I said had no effect. It may seem a laughing matter, but in the case of those of us who live 600 miles away it does make our lives very difficult. We are not idle people by any means. We have a great deal of work of various kinds to do. To give us only two days' notice when a measure of this kind is coming up for Second Reading is really not showing us much consideration. However, I will leave the matter there.
  In dealing with the Bill, I will he as brief as I possibly can, but I am sure that your Lordships would not wish that only one or two noble Lords should speak on the Second Reading. It would certainly not look very well in Scotland if that were the case. Before dealing with points arising out of the Bill, I would like to take the opportunity of raising one matter which I think has a bearing on housing generally. I am wondering whether the noble Lord who is in charge of the Bill would be good enough to make representations with a view to ascertaining whether there is some means of insisting that these various housing schemes should be made less ugly. As you travel about Scotland, you find that, taken by and large, the housing from the aesthetic point of view is monstrous. To begin with, the houses are only too often very unattractive on the outside. I know the difficulty that arises with
  322
  regard to materials, but is it necessary, as is so often the case, that dwellings should be made up of such a mixture of materials? Some of them are composed of a little bit of concrete, a little bit of stucco, a few bricks and so on. In the end you cannot help being impressed by the horrible ideas which seem to have been embodied in the construction of these places, and you cannot help feeling that it may not really be necessary.
  And when you go inside these houses, what do you find? First of all, there are the doors. You ask the builder about them and he tells you, with a smug smile, "These are housing scheme doors." If you go into any of the old "mews" cottages in London you will find the doors fitted there are in perfect proportion. It is quite an easy matter to have new doors with the panels made in proper proportion, just as it is easy to have the fenestration of houses in proper proportion. The well-known firm of Crittall's make windows in every proportion. I cannot believe that it is necessary to have almost everything connected with these houses so horribly ugly. I admit that this is not a matter which comes strictly within the Bill, but as it relates to housing generally I have taken the opportunity of raising it. I would be grateful if the noble Lord could ask whether, with the help of the Fine Art Commission or something of that sort, it would be possible to insist on something being done to mitigate what is really a great evil in the country. We are being swallowed up in a mass of ugly buildings and I, far one, do not believe that it is necessary.
  I will now, if I may, deal with two or three points in the Bill. I have little quarrel with what is in the Bill. On the whole, I think we must welcome it, and anything about which I have a quarrel is with respect to one or two matters which are not in the Bill but which I hoped might be. There is no reed for me to tell your Lordships, for it must be obvious to any of you who travel about Scotland, that the housing situation there is deplorable. We heard a great deal at Election time about an operation being carried out, in military fashion, whereby housing was to be speeded up in the same way that the production of guns was speeded up during the war. All I can say is that if a General in charge of an operation like this during the war had lasted as long

  323
  as the present people who are at present in charge of housing, with their record, I should have been very much surprised. I would have expected to find him wearing civilian clothes at a very early date, having been given the sack a long time ago.
  I do not feel that this Bill, good as it is in parts, is going to accelerate matters very much, partly because I believe it will be found that local authorities are not very anxious to build cottages where they are extremely costly, right up at the top of these far glens, until they have been able to overcome some of their own housing difficulties near at hand, for, after all, even with the grants given to them, they will have to find a proportion from the rates. I do not want to labour this point about the housing difficulty in Scotland, but I feel that I should draw the attention of your Lordships to a resolution which was passed by the British Legion in Scotland at their annual conference the other day. I had the honour of being Chairman of the British Legion of Scotland for a number of years and know that they are sound men. I would emphasise the fact that this body is entirely non-political and that this resolution is not an attack directed on the present Government or any other Government. The resolution was as follows:
  "That this Conference of the British Legion Scotland notes with the gravest concern the appalling housing shortage in Scotland: that it thinks that the number of houses built is totally inadequate compared with the number required, and that this situation is causing dreadful physical, mental and moral hardship among thousands, particularly among ex-Service men, their wives and families: that it notes also that many open and infectious cases of tuberculosis still have to remain at home in overcrowded conditions: and that it therefore requests the Legion Executive to make the strongest possible representations to all Scottish M.Ps., to the Secretary of State for Scotland, and to the Government to make the provision of houses a top priority and to tackle the problem in the same fashion as a military operation."
  I think that the resolution has a great deal to be said for it, and I consider that the Government, with all their difficulties, which I know are many, in handling their various recalcitrant followers in the docks and in other places, could still do something more than they are doing, though perhaps this Bill may help in some measure.
  324
  Shortage of housing is the cause of half the unrest to-day. If we could deal with the housing problem, I am certain that many of our difficulties would disappear. People are miserable under the present housing conditions. I am old enough, and most of your Lordships are old enough, to remember the music-hall jokes about mother-in-law. It is getting past a joke. She is becoming a stark permanent reality in the home. Families are all living together. I had a lovely mother-in-law, and most of us have very nice mothers-in-law, but to live permanently with one's mother-in-law is an entirely different matter. I know this subject causes amusement, but it is a fact that hundreds of families are living with their mothers-in-law who, as I say, may be charming people; but in the end contact makes things a little raw.
  Obviously in this Bill there is an attempt to bring back to some extent the benefits of the Housing (Rural Workers) Acts, but we are to be given no grant for what are known as tied or service cottages. I am very much afraid that, owing to the understandable reluctance of local authorities to extend their building, even with grants, into these far-flung districts, the rural housing problem will not be covered within the next thirty years, even if the Bill does accelerate building to some extent. I do not desire to make any Party capital out of this and I would therefore confine myself not to destructive criticism but to making one or two suggestions with the desire that they may be constructional. I feel that somehow or other in this Bill we have to get some of the building business back into the hands of private enterprise. Although private enterprise is now operating to a certain extent, it is doing so only with a great deal of red tape and controls. The situation as regards materials is undoubtedly easier, but I feel the Government should allow a much larger measure of free enterprise. I know that in my own county the view held is that if the ten or twelve of the excellent building firms who operate there had a free hand they would have been able to overcome our housing difficulties in about two years, and would have by now made "mincemeat" of them, if left free to do so. But because of the controls we are not on top of the problem. Somehow or other I feel we

  325
  have to try to free these controls to allow a freer approach towards building new houses.
  I would like to bring to your Lordships' notice a case which emphasises the point I am trying to make. At the end of the war a contractor in the North of Scotland went to the Department of Health and offered to build temporary houses of a very good type for £600 apiece. The houses were well designed, had a life of fifteen years and, as he said, could be converted to permanent houses at any time in their lives at very small expense. I believe the Department said that they could not possibly take the responsibility of rejecting such an offer, but they would write. They did write, and sent with their letter an enormous number of forms to be filled in. One of the questions that had to be answered was: "How many houses can be turned out in a week?" The answer from the contractor was: "That depends on whether I am to find my own labour, or whether labour is to be directed to me—in short, what labour I can rely on." From that day to this I believe the Department have let the matter drop. It may be the objection was over the use of traditional materials—that is, wood or stone—but as I have pointed out, these are in better supply now. There is no doubt about that.
  Noble Lords who were here for the debate on forestry heard a suggestion made in regard to the shortage of timber, that if the Government, instead of buying foreign pit-props would take the homegrown pit-props, and with the money which they used to buy the foreign pit-props would buy wood for housing, they would have a method of dealing with the shortage of timber, which is one of the things holding up housing—though that shortage does not now apply to the same extent. It is true that there is also a shortage of cement. However, taken by and large, there is a general improvement in the materials situation. I cannot help feeling that a measure of relief in regard to red tape, forms and controls would reduce a great deal of the slowness in enabling more houses to be built.
  My second point is this. I implore His Majesty's Government to take their courage in both hands and alter the rating system in Scotland—a question which was mentioned by my noble friend Lord
  326
  Polwarth. I am sure fiat until that is done the Government will never be able to deal with the housing difficulty there. As the noble Lord has explained, our rating system operates on entirely different lines from that in England, and if it is not dealt with the Government will never really cope with the housing shortage. The last point I want to raise is on the question of the tied or service cottage. I know that this is a point on which the Government are absolutely adamant. I have taken a great deal of trouble, not only in asking workers myself but in getting my friends in Scotland to ask their own people on the farms to ascertain whether there is any truth in this feeling against the tied cottage. I have come to the conclusion, because I receive the answer everywhere, that it is, really a myth. I believe it is true that the farm workers' union have said that they are against it. On the other hand, I understand the National Farmers' Union in Scotland are not against it. However, the Government feel unable to move unless they can get the National Farmers' Union and the farm workers' union to agree. I am afraid that those who represent the farm workers' union are rather in the same position as the leaders of the dockers and the dockers at the present moment—they are out of touch with their members. I have done my best to find out whether there is any real feeling against this system of tied cottages, and I am satisfied in my own mind that there is not, provided that the men get a reasonably satisfactory house. Scotland, as has been mentioned, is in an entirely different position. It has a different climate. One comes up against severe snowstorms, in which people are often snowed up and at times cannot get out of their homes for as long as six to thirteen weeks. There must be men on the spot to deal with the stock, and therefore the service cottage is essential.
  I would support the suggestion mentioned by my noble friend Lord Polwarth, that there should be built smaller cottages of two aid three rooms where retired farm workers could live when they have finished working. In that way agricultural workers would have houses "on the job," and when they have finished and have come to the end of their days of work they would be able to retire, knowing for certain that they would have a

  327
  house. These would be supplied by the local authority. I do not want to pursue this matter any longer because, generally speaking, I think this measure is a good one. I hope His Majesty's Government will be good enough to consider the points we have put forward, especially the one about Scottish Business in this House.
  11.2 p.m.
  LORD CLYDESMUIR: My Lords, the hour is late, but I think your Lordships will agree that an hour is a very short time indeed to devote to a measure of this importance. The noble Lord who introduced this Bill may feel thankful that he has been let down lightly by the Scottish Peers, because they have a legitimate grievance. Here is a measure which effects fundamental changes in the Housing Acts of Scotland, introduced at a late hour at night, at a late stage in the Session, and with the intention of rushing it through all stages at an early date next week. I feel that my friends who have made this complaint voiced the view of many Scottish Peers who would have liked to be present had there been sufficient notice to discuss this question. As one who has been responsible for housing in Scotland, I enter a protest.
  As regards the measure itself, the noble Lord was correct in describing it as one which has met with general acceptance by the local authorities. Its main provisions are based on a Report which was called for in the days of the Coalition Government by Mr. Tom Johnston—the Report of the MacTaggart Committee. I am glad that, in substance, the Government have seen fit to adopt the main recommendations of that Committee, particularly those with regard to the improvement of property. I am concerned, however, about one point which has not been raised so far in this debate, and that is that a good deal of improvement made possible may be endangered by a thoroughly bad Act—I refer to the Town and Country Planning Act. I am not at all sure that the improvement of property of individuals will not be stultified by the operation of the development charge under that Act. At this hour I will not enlarge upon that subject. It may be that I shall receive some reassurance in the Government reply that in no way will the provisions of the Town and
  328
  Country Planning Act affect those wino wish to improve their property. But, as I see it, there is a great risk that it may have the effect of slowing up improvements which would otherwise take place. An improvement very often means an increase of cubic capacity, and in my experience that is always liable to charge.
  This Bill was introduced in April last, and I think occupied nine meetings of the Scottish Grand Committee. It has certainly been threshed out in another place, if not here. During those meetings a number of Amendments were proposed, some of which were accepted, and so it was improved in its passage through another place. I have no complaint to make about its treatment there. My complaint is the one that I have already made, that noble Lords in this House have had insufficient time to gather together and discuss it.
  I think the local authorities will welcome this Bill, which certainly gives them further funds to apply to both the improvement of property and new housing. But the proof of the pudding will be in the eating. We must see how this plan works out. It will be of little ultimate value to Scotland if the promotion of new building must go. I hope that both will go on in a parallel way, and that advantage will be taken of every possible device that is known. I hope the private builder will have a reasonable opportunity of making his contribution to this work. As I say, I welcome the proposal that property should be improved, but in the result we must be careful that the absolute shortage of houses which still exists in Scotland is not continued by the building of new houses being slowed up. I have said all I wish to say. I hope that the working of the Bill will prove satisfactory and that my fears about the Town and Country Planning Act will not prove justified. But I felt it right to express that fear, and I trust that the Government, in a chastened spirit, will remember that this House desires to tackle big measures in a serious way.
  11.7 p.m.
  LORD MORRISON: My Lords, I am glad that this Bill has been generally welcomed. I knew there would be complaints that there had been insufficient time for its consideration. I agree entirely with that view, and I hope noble Lords will realise that I am not happy to be

  329
  handling a Bill at this time of night—although, indeed, both the noble Lord who spoke last and myself were accustomed to doing work in another place at hours much later than this. If I may strike a personal note, I made my maiden speech in another place at six o'clock in the morning.
  THE EARL OF AIRLIE: I never made any complaint about the lateness; I complained merely about the inefficiency of the way in which the Bill was brought in. You can bring it in at eight o'clock in the morning, if you like. I shall be here.
  LORD MORRISON: With regard to the insufficiency of the time, this of course is our busy season, towards the end of July. When a Bill that has been under discussion in the Scottish Grand Committee for a long time suddenly comes up at the end of the season, we are faced with the choice either of deciding that it shall be held up until the autumn or of dealing with it in such conditions as we are experiencing tonight. I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Airlie, that it is inconvenient. I hope he does not think I enjoy it any more than he does. If I had my way we should adopt a new system here by finishing our general work by the end of June and adjourning to Scotland, where we could devote the whole of July to Scottish legislation. I am sure that the legislation, as well as the health of the noble Lords, would benefit.
  I can only say, therefore, at this late hour, that all the points that have been made will be considered. If I went into a number of them now I do not think it would be fair either to the House or to its Officers who would be kept here. I think the Scottish people would be disappointed if the Bill were held up now, and the Scottish local authorities would certainly be disappointed. I should like, however, to answer the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Clydesmuir. Dwellings improved under the Bill will be exempt from development charges. That purpose will be obtained by regulations which will be made under the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act for this purpose. I think that meets the point which the noble Lord made. I will guarantee that all the points that have been made in the debate will receive
  330
  consideration and will be brought to the notice of those responsible. I would like to thank noble Lords for the way in which they have received the Bill.
  On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

  DOCKING AND NICKING OF HORSES BILL
  11.10 p.m.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  LORD MERTHYR: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. This is a Private Member's Bill. I think I can explain it very shortly. Clause 1(1) imposes a prohibition on the process of docking and nicking of horses. Subsection (2) provides an exception and makes it legal to dock a horse's tail where it is necessary for the health of the horse because of "disease or injury to the tail." Subsection (3) imposes a penalty. Clause 2 deals with imports. Imports of docked horses are prohibited, with the exception set out in subsection (2) where imports which are intended for re-export are allowed; imports for breeding purposes are also allowed under certain safeguards and licences. Again there follow penalty clauses in subsections (3) and (4). Subsection (5), your Lordships will note, says that
  "This section shall come into operation on the first day of January, nineteen hundred and fifty-five."
  The object of that subsection is to give ample notice and time to those concerned in importing horses, and is in fact agreed between the people concerned. Then follows a rather important interpretation clause, Clause 3. I wish to draw your Lordships' attention to Clause 5, subsection (3), which says:
  "This Act shall not extend to Northern Ireland."
  One result of that will be that it will still be possible—and I admit that this is a temporary weakness in the position—to import horses from Eire through Northern Ireland into the remainder of the United Kingdom, but we thought it right to exclude Northern Ireland from this Bill because we took the view that it would be proper for the Northern Ireland Parliament to introduce a Bill of their own on the same subject.

  331
  This Bill has already passed through all its stages in another place. It is also almost word for word the same as a Bill to which your Lordships gave a Second Reading in 1938. On that occasion, in spite of the rejection being moved, it was carried by fifty-five votes to twenty. I am glad to see two other noble Lords besides myself here this evening who took part in that debate. Although they belonged to different Parties, they both voted on the right side. In support of this Bill I put forward two general propositions. The first is that docking is cruel; the second is that it is unnecessary. The general law of this country, as I understand it, is that cruelty to animals is lawful so long as it is necessary. When it becomes unnecessary, it also becomes unlawful. I say that this practice of docking is cruel for two reasons: first, the operation itself is cruel. It is quite true to say that, under the Animals and Anæsthetics Act, 1919, it is compulsory to use anæsthetics, but the fact remains that that is a difficult piece of legislation to enforce. It is easy in out-of-the-way farms and other places to evade the law.
  Secondly, and much more important, there is the question of cruelty that follows for the rest of the animal's life, through the deprivation of his tail. The tail is provided by nature to protect a horse against flies in summer and against the elements in winter. To remove the tail is not only an unnatural thing to do but it makes the horse completely vulnerable to those two things. Nature provides, in one way or another, a complete protection for the whole of the horse's body, and in the parts not covered by the tail it provides protection for the horse against flies. The parts covered by the normal tail are completely unprotected in any other way and, in our submission, therefore, it is a most cruel practice to remove the tail. If any of your Lordships have seen horses out in a field during hot weather you will, I think, appreciate the cruelty involved in the complete or partial removal of the tail.
  In trying to prove that it is unnecessary, I must deal very briefly with some of the objections to the Bill. It is, or was, said by the opponents of the Bill that there is a danger of the reins getting under the tail. That, I submit, is purely
  332
  bad driving. It is said that it is difficult to use horses for ploughing when they are not docked. That, I also say, is not a good point, because there are millions of horses used for ploughing, or were before tractors came in, principally in America; and I think it is demonstrated that it is not necessary to have docked horses in ploughs. Then it is said that undocked tails become dirty and are difficult to clean. It may save a little trouble to dock a tail; but I ask your Lordships, is cruelty to horses justified in order to save trouble to those who look after them? If trouble needs to be saved, it can be done by cutting the hair and binding it up. Then it is said that docking improves the appearance of the horse. That is a matter of opinion. I hold the opposite view, as do a great many people. I submit it is purely a question of fashion; it comes and goes. Docking has really been dwindling but is still prevalent in this country, mainly among horses exhibited at shows. Whatever the right answer to that question, it does not justify cruelty to animals.
  Finally, it is said that it is difficult to have an undocked horse in a tip cart. To that I reply that it is due to bad harnessing and to the traces being too short; and to get over that difficulty the solution is not to cut the horse to fit the cart, but to make the cart to fit the horse. My Lords, if this process of docking is necessary, why is it that millions of horses have been worked undocked, principally in other countries but also in this country, for a long period of time? In the last century, between 1840 and 1880, it was an uncommon thing in this country to dock horses, and there has never been a time when horses were more used than during those decades.
  I have taken some trouble to inquire about the position overseas. My information may not be quite up to date, but the results are interesting. On making inquiries overseas, it was found that docking is regarded as an English fashion; that in many parts of the world it is not carried on at all, and it is certainly not in all tropical countries, for obvious reasons. In seven States in the United States, it was prohibited as long ago as 1938, and possibly it is prohibited in more by this time. In Norway, Sweden and Germany it is illegal, and I would ask, if it is necessary, as alleged,

  333
  how comes it that it has been prohibited in those countries? Inquiries in the British Dominions elicited the information: "That sort of thing is not done here. Therefore, it is not necessary to pass legislation to prohibit it." I would ask this further question: If England is rightly regarded as a horse-loving country and also—as I hope it is—as a country which disapproves very strongly of cruelty to animals, how is it that this antiquated practice is still allowed to continue?
  The last time I introduced this Bill was in 1938, and the noble Earl, Lord Radnor—who I am sorry is not present in your Lordships' House to-night—then described it as "grandmotherly legislation." I am afraid that the lady is still very much alive, and will continue to be so until this Bill becomes an Act. Finally, I would like to say this, in apologising to your Lordships for having introduced this Bill at this hour of the night: that it is not intended to take the Committee stage until the autumn, if your Lordships see fit to give a Second Reading to this Bill. I beg to move that it be now read a second time.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Merthyr.)
  EARL FORTESCUE: My Lords, I do not propose to oppose the Second Reading of this Bill, but, at the same time, I reserve my right to move some Amendments at the Committee stage.
  11.22 p.m.
  LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, so far, at any rate, there is no law against the docking of speeches. Your Lordships may think it would be useful to have such a measure! Until such an Act is on the Statute Book, however, I propose to avail
  334
  myself of the law as it at present stands, and to keep my speech very short. His Majesty's Government welcome this Bill and will give it their support. They agree that arguments which have been put forward against this Bill are greatly over-weighted, and that, while there may be certain inconveniences, it is very unlikely that the carrying through of the Bill would, in fact, have the harmful effects which have been suggested. It is true that my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture has taken considerable interest in the matter, and that it was necessary to safeguard the position in respect of imported docked horses. There is a certain amount of docking of horses in some Continental countries, and, as some of those horses ire valuable for breeding it is necessary that we should be in a position to import them for that purpose. Negotiations over this have given rise to a certain amount of difficulty, but they have now been satisfactorily carried through. The Bill, as it has come through from the other place, bears the imprint of those negotiations, and is now satisfactory to His Majesty's Government who give it their support.
  On Question, Bill real 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

  MERSEY TUNNEL BILL
  Reported, without amendment.

  URMSTON URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL SOUTHAMPTON HARBOUR BILL
  Reported, with Amendments.
  House adjourned at twenty-five minutes past eleven o'clock.